Cullon v. Haynes

Supreme Court of Iowa

Cullon v. Haynes

298 N.W. 851, 230 Iowa 489

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJune 17, 1941

DocketNo. 45553.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 N.W. 851 (Cullon v. Haynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cullon v. Haynes, 298 N.W. 851, 230 Iowa 489 (iowa 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Hale, C. J.

Plaintiff filed his petition at the same time as did Convey, plaintiff in the preceding case, and both cases were heard on the same day, July 18, 1940. The plaintiffs, Cullon and Convey, were two of the five defendants sentenced in Plymouth county November 19, 1919. The offer of evidence and proceedings in the two habeas corpus cases were substantially the same, and the judgment and order of the district court denying the writ and remanding the plaintiffs to the custody of the warden were identical.

We have discussed the questions raised herein in the case of Convey v. Haynes, 230 Iowa 485, 298 N. W. 647, and for the reasons therein given, our ruling and order in this case must be an affirmance of the order of the trial court. — Affirmed.

Mitchell, Sager, Bliss, Oliver, Miller, Gareield, and Wennerstrum, JJ., concur.

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

Hale, C. J.

Plaintiff filed his petition at the same time as did Convey, plaintiff in the preceding case, and both cases were heard on the same day, July 18, 1940. The plaintiffs, Cullon and Convey, were two of the five defendants sentenced in Plymouth county November 19, 1919. The offer of evidence and proceedings in the two habeas corpus cases were substantially the same, and the judgment and order of the district court denying the writ and remanding the plaintiffs to the custody of the warden were identical.

We have discussed the questions raised herein in the case of Convey v. Haynes, 230 Iowa 485, 298 N. W. 647, and for the reasons therein given, our ruling and order in this case must be an affirmance of the order of the trial court. — Affirmed.

Mitchell, Sager, Bliss, Oliver, Miller, Gareield, and Wennerstrum, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 N.W. 851, 230 Iowa 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cullon-v-haynes-iowa-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack