Pisarski v. Hunter

Indiana Supreme Court

Pisarski v. Hunter

120 N.E. 27, 187 Ind. 726, 1918 Ind. LEXIS 92

Indiana Supreme Court·Decided June 28, 1918·No. No. 23,442·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Townsend, J.

— Appellant, a licensed saloon keeper, sought to enjoin appellee, prosecuting attorney for Lake county, from enforcing the Prohibition Law (Acts 1917 p. .15). Appellee’s demurrer to the complaint was sustained.

The validity of the act, under the state and federal Constitutions, is brought in question.

The points presented having been determined in the case of Schmitt v. F. W. Cook Brewing Company (1918), ante 623, 120 N. E. 19, 23, at this term, the judgment is affirmed.

Spencer, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Townsend, J.

— Appellant, a licensed saloon keeper, sought to enjoin appellee, prosecuting attorney for Lake county, from enforcing the Prohibition Law (Acts 1917 p. .15). Appellee’s demurrer to the complaint was sustained.

The validity of the act, under the state and federal Constitutions, is brought in question.

The points presented having been determined in the case of Schmitt v. F. W. Cook Brewing Company (1918), ante 623, 120 N. E. 19, 23, at this term, the judgment is affirmed.

Spencer, J., dissents.

Pisarski v. Hunter, 120 N.E. 27, 187 Ind. 726, 1918 Ind. LEXIS 92 (Ind. 1918).

Pincite

120 N.E. 27 (Pisarski v. Hunter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related