State ex rel. Jefferson v. Gray
Citations
- 111 La. 853
- 35 So. 952
- 1904 La. LEXIS 571
Syllabus
<p>INTOXICATING LIQUOR—LICENSES—ILLEGAL SALE—STATUTES—REPEAL—PENALTY.</p> <p>1. Act No. 66, p. 93, of 1902, is binding to the extent that it is binding in parishes in which they have adopted local option or prohibition ordinances, and Act No. 107, p. 161, of 1902, is binding in parishes in which licenses are issued to liquor dealers.</p> <p>2. Act No. 66, p. 93, of 1902, was given effect in State v. Brown, 6 South. 638, 41 La. Ann. 771, in prohibition parishes, and that effect remains as laid down in that decision, and Act No. 107, p. 161, of 1902, governs in all parishes in which licenses are issued.</p> <p>3. The penalty is provided in Act No. 66, p. 93, of 1902, in prohibition parishes, and Act No. 107, p_. 161, of the same session, provides a penalty in parishes in which licenses are issued.</p> <p>Provosty, J., dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that providing notice and an opportunity to cure would have been futile considering defendant’s insistence that the alleged violations were “in full conformity” with the contract entered between the parties
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breaitx, Proyosty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.