Opinion · Supreme Court of Minnesota

Vorlander v. Hokenson

Vorlander v. Hokenson, 145 Minn. 484 (Minn. 1920)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Date: 1920-01-23
Topic: general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Vorlander v. Hokenson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 4 opinions

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.