City of Winona v. Burke
This text of 23 Minn. 254 (City of Winona v. Burke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant was convicted in the court below for the alleged violation of a city ordinance. On the trial no proof of the ordinance was made, and the defendant moved to dismiss the prosecution on that ground, which motion was denied. It is claimed on behalf of the city that, because of Laws 1873, c. 68 — which provides that, when the “by-laws, ordinances, etc., of any city * * * have been or shall hereafter be printed and published by authority of the corporation, the same shall be received in evidence in all courts and places without further proof” —the court will take judicial notice of the existence of the ordinance, without proof. Such was not the intention of the act, as is clear from its language, and does not aifect the necessity of proving the ordinance. Courts do not take judicial notice of city ordinances. Garvin v. Wells, 8 Iowa, 286 ; Goodrich v. Brown, 30 Iowa, 291. Such ordinances should be pleaded and proved.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 Minn. 254, 1876 Minn. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-winona-v-burke-minn-1876.