State v. Dohm

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Dohm

246 N.W. 527, 188 Minn. 68

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 20, 1933

DocketNo. 29,401.

StatusPublished

This text of 246 N.W. 527 (State v. Dohm) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Dohm, 246 N.W. 527, 188 Minn. 68 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case in all respects is similar to State v. Finnegan, 188 Minn. 54, 246 N. W. 521, except that the property is a parcel of state school land. The answer sets up the supposed unconstitutionality of L. 1931, p. 206, c. 186. The state demurred to the answer. From the sustaining order defendant appeals.

Upon the grounds of decision in State v. Finnegan, the order must be and is affirmed.

HILTON and OLSEN, Justices, took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case in all respects is similar to State v. Finnegan, 188 Minn. 54, 246 N. W. 521, except that the property is a parcel of state school land. The answer sets up the supposed unconstitutionality of L. 1931, p. 206, c. 186. The state demurred to the answer. From the sustaining order defendant appeals.

Upon the grounds of decision in State v. Finnegan, the order must be and is affirmed.

HILTON and OLSEN, Justices, took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 N.W. 527, 188 Minn. 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dohm-minn-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack