Dehning v. Marshall Produce Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court
Dehning v. Marshall Produce Co., 10 N.W.2d 229 (Minn. 1943)
215 Minn. 339
PER CURIAM.

Can I rely on this case?

Partly — depends on the issue

Based on 7 citing opinions

Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.

Dehning v. Marshall Produce Co.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Certiorari to review an order of the commissioner of agriculture, dairy and food revoking a wholesale produce dealer’s license issued to the “Marshall Produce Company and/or Ortonville Produce Company” June 17, 1942, pursuant to Minn. St. 1941, § 27.04 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 6240-18½c).

The writ issued out of this court February 23, 1943. The commissioner filed his return thereto March 10. The record and relators’ brief were filed April 27; respondents’ brief, May 17; relators’ reply brief, May 19; and the case was argued in this court May 26.

*340 The license here involved expired May 31, 1943. A decision of the case on its merits would not benefit either party to this proceeding. Decisions in this court should be limited to real controversies involving existing facts and rights asserted thereunder. Anderson v. Village of Louisberg, 121 Minn. 528, 141 N. W. 97; State ex rel. Klemer v. City Recorder, 129 Minn. 535, 152 N. W. 654; Troy v. City of St. Paul, 155 Minn. 391, 193 N. W. 726; Moore v. McDonald, 165 Minn. 484, 205 N. W. 894; McDonald v. Brewery and Beverage D. & H. & W. Union, 215 Minn. 274, 9 N. W. (2d) 770. The question here involved is moot.

Writ discharged.

Reference

Full Case Name
Edward Dehning, D. B. a . Old Mill Produce, and Another v. Marshall Produce Company and Another. [Fn1]
Cited By
7 cases
Status
Published