Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

71 Vt. 94

State v. Cruickshank

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided January 26, 1899

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1899-01-26

Complaint to the city court for the city of Barre by the city attorney. Heard in that court on demurrer to the complaint August 6, 1898. Demurrer overruled. The respondent excepted. cited Bishop on Statutory Crime, (2d ed.) §§ 404-408; State v. Soragan, 40' Yt. 450; Keeler v. Milledge, 4 Zab. 142; 1 Archibald, Crim. P. &. P. 248; Wharton, Crim.

Relies on State v. Soragan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-01-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1972

5 state decisions

20189919001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Rowell, J.

¶1This complaint lacks substance. It alleges that the respondent did ride a bicycle along and upon the sidewalk on a certain street in the city of Barre, “in violation of sections twenty-five and thirty-six of chapter thirteen of the ordinances of said city,” contra formam stattih. It should have set out the ordinances, as the court cannot take judicial notice of them. State v. Soragan, 40 Vt. 450.

¶2It properly concluded against the form of the statute. State v. Soragan. Perhaps it should also have concluded against the form of the ordinances.

¶3Judgment reversed, demurrer sustained, complaint adjudged insufficient, and cause remanded.

/71/vt/94 · .json · Public domain