Minnesota Supreme Court, 1894

State v. Anderson

State v. Anderson
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 21, 1894
59 Minn. 484; 61 N.W. 448; 1894 Minn. LEXIS 191 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Steele é Rees, for appellant., David F. Simpson, and Milton D. Purdy, for respondent.

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 1894, 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

State v. Anderson

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

Per Curiam.

The points raised by the assignments of error and argued by counsel for appellant are not before us, for the return fails to show that any order or judgment upon the conviction has ever been made. We are advised by the record that defendant was found guilty, that a stay of proceedings was granted, a case settled, and subsequently a motion for a new trial made and denied. There is nothing to show that the court below revoked or attempted to revoke defendant’s license, as provided in the city charter (Sp. Laws 1881, ch. 76, subch. 4, § 16); and appellant’s argument is wholly devoted to the power of the court to revoke his license.

Appeal dismissed.

(Opinion published 61 N. W. 448.)

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.