In Re Barlow

Idaho Supreme Court

In Re Barlow

282 P. 380, 48 Idaho 309, 1929 Ida. LEXIS 60

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 1, 1929

DocketNo. 5504.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 282 P. 380 (In Re Barlow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Barlow, 282 P. 380, 48 Idaho 309, 1929 Ida. LEXIS 60 (Idaho 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

WM. E. LEE, J. —

The supreme court having jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions of the district courts in habeas corpus proceedings (In re Jennings, 46 Ida. 142, 267 Pac. 227) will not exercise its power (Const., art. 5, sec. 9; C. S., sec. 9275) to grant an original writ of habeas corpus except in extraordinary eases. (In re Burnette, 73 Kan. 609, 85 Pac. 575; Ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St. 81, 70 Am. Dec. 55; Ex parte Shean, 25 Ohio St. 440; State v. Wolfer, 127 Minn. 102, 148 N. W. 896, L. R. A. 1915B, 95; Ex parte Lynn, 19 Tex. App. 120; Ex parte Japan, 36 Tex. Crim. 48, 38 S. W. 43; Ex parte Patterson, 42 Tex. Crim. 256, 58 S. W. 1011, 51 L. R. A. 654; Ex parte Lambert, 37 Tex. Crim. 435, 36 S. W. 81; Ex parte Ellis, 11 Cal. 223; Ex parte Nabors, 33 N. M. 324, 267 Pac. 58; People v. *310 Adams, 83 Colo. 321, 264 Pac. 1090; Commonwealth v. Curry, 285 Pa. 289, 132 Atl. 370; Ex parte Mulholland, 13 Cal. App. 734, 110 Pac. 585; 13 Cal. Jur., “Habeas Corpus,” sec. 37; 29 C. J. 141.) Application has not been made to the district court of the county and no sufficient reason is assigned for first invoking the jurisdiction of the supreme court. ‘

The petition is accordingly denied.

Budge, C. J., and Givens, T. Bailey Lee and Varian, JJ., concur.

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

WM. E. LEE, J. —

The supreme court having jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions of the district courts in habeas corpus proceedings (In re Jennings, 46 Ida. 142, 267 Pac. 227) will not exercise its power (Const., art. 5, sec. 9; C. S., sec. 9275) to grant an original writ of habeas corpus except in extraordinary eases. (In re Burnette, 73 Kan. 609, 85 Pac. 575; Ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St. 81, 70 Am. Dec. 55; Ex parte Shean, 25 Ohio St. 440; State v. Wolfer, 127 Minn. 102, 148 N. W. 896, L. R. A. 1915B, 95; Ex parte Lynn, 19 Tex. App. 120; Ex parte Japan, 36 Tex. Crim. 48, 38 S. W. 43; Ex parte Patterson, 42 Tex. Crim. 256, 58 S. W. 1011, 51 L. R. A. 654; Ex parte Lambert, 37 Tex. Crim. 435, 36 S. W. 81; Ex parte Ellis, 11 Cal. 223; Ex parte Nabors, 33 N. M. 324, 267 Pac. 58; People v. *310 Adams, 83 Colo. 321, 264 Pac. 1090; Commonwealth v. Curry, 285 Pa. 289, 132 Atl. 370; Ex parte Mulholland, 13 Cal. App. 734, 110 Pac. 585; 13 Cal. Jur., “Habeas Corpus,” sec. 37; 29 C. J. 141.) Application has not been made to the district court of the county and no sufficient reason is assigned for first invoking the jurisdiction of the supreme court. ‘

The petition is accordingly denied.

Budge, C. J., and Givens, T. Bailey Lee and Varian, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 P. 380, 48 Idaho 309, 1929 Ida. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-barlow-idaho-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack