Ex Parte Lyons

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Lyons

1930 OK CR 346, 290 P. 568, 48 Okla. Crim. 205, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 87

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 2, 1930

DocketNo. A-7889.

StatusPublished

This text of 1930 OK CR 346 (Ex Parte Lyons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Lyons, 1930 OK CR 346, 290 P. 568, 48 Okla. Crim. 205, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 87 (Okla. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus in which petitioner alleges that she is incarcerated in the city jail of Tulsa charged with the violation of “Ordinance number-of the city of Tulsa.” It is then alleged that the ordinance is void for numerous reasons. The application was filed on June 6, and a hearing had. The petition for writ does not have attached to it a copy of the ordinance, and no proof of it was made under the provisions of section 645, Comp. St. 1921, nor does the petition disclose the number of the ordinance nor the date of its adoption. Counsel for petitioner was given ten days to file brief, and, when not filed during that time, a further extension of ten days was allowed. No briefs have been filed. The petition will be considered as abandoned.

The case is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus in which petitioner alleges that she is incarcerated in the city jail of Tulsa charged with the violation of “Ordinance number-of the city of Tulsa.” It is then alleged that the ordinance is void for numerous reasons. The application was filed on June 6, and a hearing had. The petition for writ does not have attached to it a copy of the ordinance, and no proof of it was made under the provisions of section 645, Comp. St. 1921, nor does the petition disclose the number of the ordinance nor the date of its adoption. Counsel for petitioner was given ten days to file brief, and, when not filed during that time, a further extension of ten days was allowed. No briefs have been filed. The petition will be considered as abandoned.

The case is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1930 OK CR 346, 290 P. 568, 48 Okla. Crim. 205, 1930 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-lyons-oklacrimapp-1930.