Jewett v. City of Tulsa

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Jewett v. City of Tulsa

1923 OK CR 218, 217 P. 1117, 24 Okla. Crim. 193, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 330

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 4, 1923

DocketNo. A-4775.

StatusPublished

This text of 1923 OK CR 218 (Jewett v. City of Tulsa) 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

Jewett v. City of Tulsa, 1923 OK CR 218, 217 P. 1117, 24 Okla. Crim. 193, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 330 (Okla. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, H. E. Jewett, C. W. Bishop, W. W. Bishop, and J. H. Powers, copartners doing'business under the firm name óf E. C. Waffle House, filed in this court July 21, 1923, their petition alleging certain facts and praying *194 that á writ of prohibition issue to the municipal court of the city of Tulsa, and to G-. E. Warren, judge of said court, and Thomas I. Monroe, temporary judge of said court, commanding said court and said judges from proceeding to try petitioners, or their agents, servants, or employees, for the alleged violation of a certain ordinance of the city of Tulsa, at which times said application was assigned for hearing. In the meantime petitioners by their counsel of record have filed a motion to dismiss the cause, which motion is sustained and the cause dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, H. E. Jewett, C. W. Bishop, W. W. Bishop, and J. H. Powers, copartners doing'business under the firm name óf E. C. Waffle House, filed in this court July 21, 1923, their petition alleging certain facts and praying *194 that á writ of prohibition issue to the municipal court of the city of Tulsa, and to G-. E. Warren, judge of said court, and Thomas I. Monroe, temporary judge of said court, commanding said court and said judges from proceeding to try petitioners, or their agents, servants, or employees, for the alleged violation of a certain ordinance of the city of Tulsa, at which times said application was assigned for hearing. In the meantime petitioners by their counsel of record have filed a motion to dismiss the cause, which motion is sustained and the cause dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK CR 218, 217 P. 1117, 24 Okla. Crim. 193, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jewett-v-city-of-tulsa-oklacrimapp-1923.