Vorlander v. Hokenson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Vorlander v. Hokenson

175 N.W. 995, 145 Minn. 484

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided January 23, 1920·No. No. 21,625·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

The facts bring this case within the rule stated and applied in State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 158 N. W. 1017, and State v. City of Minneapolis, 136 Minn. 479, 162 N. W. 477. No distinction in point of substance can be [485] made between the facts there presented and those here before the court, and the decisions there rendered are followed and applied.

The order appealed from is therefore reversed.

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

Pee Cubiam.

The facts bring this case within the rule stated and applied in State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 158 N. W. 1017, and State v. City of Minneapolis, 136 Minn. 479, 162 N. W. 477. No distinction in point of substance can be [485] made between the facts there presented and those here before the court, and the decisions there rendered are followed and applied.

The order appealed from is therefore reversed.

Vorlander v. Hokenson, 175 N.W. 995, 145 Minn. 484 (Mich. 1920).

Pincite

175 N.W. 995 (Vorlander v. Hokenson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related