State v. Hammond
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1918, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- City of Virginia v. Erickson (Minn. 1918)
- State ex rel. Zien v. City of Duluth (Minn. 1916)
- State v. Sugarman (Minn. 1914)
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Brown (Minn. 1910)
- Village of Fairmont v. Meyer (Minn. 1901)
- Green v. Eastern Railway Co. (Minn. 1892)
- City of St. Louis v. King (Mo. 1910)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The charter of the city of Minneapolis provides (Sp. Laws 1881, c. 76, sube. 4, § 5) that “the city council shall have full power and authority to make, ordain, publish, enforce, alter, amend, or repeal all such ordinances for the government and good order of the city, for the suppression of vice and intemperance, and for the prevention of crime, as it shall deem expedient; * * * and for these purposes the said city council shall have authority, by such ordinances, * * * sixteenth, to prevent open or notorious drunkenness and obscenity in the streets or public places of said city.” The council passed an ordinance imposing a penalty upon any person who commits any act of lewdness or indecency within the limits of said city of Minneapolis. Section 4, ordinance 5. The precise and definite specifications of what the council may do to accomplish the general purposes mentioned in the beginning of section 5, as above quoted, (there are 42 heads of these specifications,) limit the power of the council to what is thus particularly specified j so that, if the general grant of power with which the section begins seems larger over a given subject than the subsequent specification treating of that particular subject would justify, the latter must prevail. In respect to preventing and punishing lewdness, indecency, or obscenity, the specification above quoted, — and it is the only one
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.