Johns v. Linn

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Johns v. Linn

1917 OK CR 161, 164 P. 990, 13 Okla. Crim. 734, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 102

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 18, 1917

DocketNo. A-2698.

StatusPublished

This text of 1917 OK CR 161 (Johns v. Linn) 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

Johns v. Linn, 1917 OK CR 161, 164 P. 990, 13 Okla. Crim. 734, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 102 (Okla. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was a proceeding in mandamus on behalf of John T. Johns, B. H. McLaughlin, Ben Green, G. H. Overton, R. J. Allison, and D. W. Moore, the defendants named in certain indictments returned and presented in the district court of Tulsa county, to require the respondent, Conn Linn, judge of said district court, to certify his disqualification to preside as such judge at the trials of said cases, on the ground of the bias and prejudice of said judge against the petitioners. The respondent filed an answer to the petition, denying that he entertained any bias or prejudice against said petitioners. The ease was heard and submitted upon the pleadings and the evidence adduced. It now appears that the cases in question were , assigned to another judge, and by agreement of the parties this case 'is to be dismissed.

The ease is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This was a proceeding in mandamus on behalf of John T. Johns, B. H. McLaughlin, Ben Green, G. H. Overton, R. J. Allison, and D. W. Moore, the defendants named in certain indictments returned and presented in the district court of Tulsa county, to require the respondent, Conn Linn, judge of said district court, to certify his disqualification to preside as such judge at the trials of said cases, on the ground of the bias and prejudice of said judge against the petitioners. The respondent filed an answer to the petition, denying that he entertained any bias or prejudice against said petitioners. The ease was heard and submitted upon the pleadings and the evidence adduced. It now appears that the cases in question were , assigned to another judge, and by agreement of the parties this case 'is to be dismissed.

The ease is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK CR 161, 164 P. 990, 13 Okla. Crim. 734, 1917 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johns-v-linn-oklacrimapp-1917.