Allen v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Allen v. State

30 So. 2d 483, 249 Ala. 201

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 15, 1947

Docket7 Div. 916.

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 30 So. 2d 483 (Allen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. State, 30 So. 2d 483, 249 Ala. 201 (Ala. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

LAWSON, Justice.

Luther Allen has filed here his petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and lecision of that court in the case of Allen v. State.

The State, acting by and through its Attorney General, has filed a motion to strike Allen’s petition for writ of certiorari on the following grounds: (1) that there has been no compliance with Rule 36 of the Rules of Practice of this court in that said petition, as filed, is not on transcript paper; (2) for that there has not been fulh compliance with Rule 44 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, as amended, in that said petition is not accompanied by a brief pointing out= and arguing the points or decision sought to be revised.

The State’s motion to strike is well taken and must be granted. The petition, as alleged in „ the State’s motion to strike, is not on transcript paper, but is written out on ordinary legal cap paper and, therefore, is not in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 36. Title 7, Appendix, Code 1940. In Peterson v. State, 248 Ala. 179, 27 So.2d 30, it was held that a petition for certiorari not made on transcript paper is subject to being stricken. Petitioner has not filed a brief in this court setting out and arguing the points in the opinion of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed. Petitioner has merely refiled the brief originally filed in the Court of Appeals. This is not a sufficient compliance with Supreme Court Rule 44, as amended, which requires that the application for certiorari must be accompanied by a brief pointing out and arguing the points or decision sought to be revised. Ex parte Locklear, 205 Ala. 236, 87 So. 712; Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. v. Scott, 248 Ala. 250, 27 So.2d 152.

It follows, therefore, that the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Luther Allen must be stricken. It is so ordered.

Petition for writ of certiorari stricken.

GARDNER, C. J., and FOSTER and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LAWSON, Justice.

Luther Allen has filed here his petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and lecision of that court in the case of Allen v. State.

The State, acting by and through its Attorney General, has filed a motion to strike Allen’s petition for writ of certiorari on the following grounds: (1) that there has been no compliance with Rule 36 of the Rules of Practice of this court in that said petition, as filed, is not on transcript paper; (2) for that there has not been fulh compliance with Rule 44 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, as amended, in that said petition is not accompanied by a brief pointing out= and arguing the points or decision sought to be revised.

The State’s motion to strike is well taken and must be granted. The petition, as alleged in „ the State’s motion to strike, is not on transcript paper, but is written out on ordinary legal cap paper and, therefore, is not in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 36. Title 7, Appendix, Code 1940. In Peterson v. State, 248 Ala. 179, 27 So.2d 30, it was held that a petition for certiorari not made on transcript paper is subject to being stricken. Petitioner has not filed a brief in this court setting out and arguing the points in the opinion of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed. Petitioner has merely refiled the brief originally filed in the Court of Appeals. This is not a sufficient compliance with Supreme Court Rule 44, as amended, which requires that the application for certiorari must be accompanied by a brief pointing out and arguing the points or decision sought to be revised. Ex parte Locklear, 205 Ala. 236, 87 So. 712; Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. v. Scott, 248 Ala. 250, 27 So.2d 152.

It follows, therefore, that the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Luther Allen must be stricken. It is so ordered.

Petition for writ of certiorari stricken.

GARDNER, C. J., and FOSTER and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 So. 2d 483, 249 Ala. 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-state-ala-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack