State v. Dohm

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Dohm

246 N.W. 527, 188 Minn. 68

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided January 20, 1933·No. No. 29,401.·Published

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.

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

Pincite

246 N.W. 527 (State v. Dohm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related