City of Charleston v. Cadle

49 N.E. 192, 167 Ill. 647
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided October 12, 1897·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Phillips

announced the opinion of the court:

In this case an opinion was filed with which counsel in the case seemed to be content. The opinion was duly published in 166 Ill. 487, and certain attorneys who were not engaged in the case applied for leave to appear as amicus curias and file a brief in this case and a petition for rehearing. We have heretofore, in the Northern Grand Division, when the question was presented to us, refused to permit persons who were not attorneys in the case in any way, to appear and file briefs unless it was at the request or assent of the attorneys engaged in the cause, and this motion to appear as amicus curice, and motion to file briefs in the case and a petition for rehearing, are denied. The cause is stricken.

Stricken from docket.

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

City of Charleston v. Cadle, 49 N.E. 192, 167 Ill. 647 (Ill. 1897).

49 N.E. 192 (City of Charleston v. Cadle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. State
152 S.E. 76 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Burns v. State
173 P. 55 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1918)
In Re Lee
171 P. 958 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Boyd v. Brazil Block Coal Co.
49 N.E. 797 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1898)