City of Duluth v. City Market Co.
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 2003, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State v. Wohlsol, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
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
Convicted under an ordinance of the city of Duluth of wilfully selling meat unfit for human consumption, defendant appeals from the judgment.
There is not enough of merit in the case to Avarrant much discussion. It may be, as appellant claims, that the prosecution Aims initiated by envious competitors. But that does not alter the fact that the record discloses sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The meat in question was “stew meat,” a chopped combination of veal, mutton, and lamb. There is evidence that the sale upon which the conviction rests Avas of meat which had commenced to putrefy. The trial judge — there was no jury — Avas justified in concluding that the process had progressed so far that the meat was unfit for human consumption.
The motion for neAv trial presented no prejudicial error and nothing of neAvly discovered evidence to compel a new trial. Hence the *150 denial of the motion was a matter of discretion, in the exercise of which we are unable to find any abuse.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.