Marrs v. Hoel

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Marrs v. Hoel

1940 OK CR 132, 106 P.2d 846, 70 Okla. Crim. 384, 1940 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 107

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 23, 1940

DocketNo. A-9946.

StatusPublished

This text of 1940 OK CR 132 (Marrs v. Hoel) 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

Marrs v. Hoel, 1940 OK CR 132, 106 P.2d 846, 70 Okla. Crim. 384, 1940 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 107 (Okla. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE- CUEIAM.

Now, on this tbe 22nd day of October, 1930, came on to be beard tbe application of tbe petitioner for a peremptory writ of mandamus; and' thereupon, tbe petitioner appears by J. M. Springer, bis attorney, and respondent appears not, neither in person nor by attorney, but having heretofore on the 16th day of October, 1940, filed bis written verified response; and thereupon petitioner introduces bis evidence and rests; and thereupon tbe case was duly argued to the court, and tbe court after having beard tbe evidence and argument of counsel, and after examining the pleadings and proceedings in this case, and being fully advised in tbe premises, finds: That tbe plaintiff filed his petition for writ of mandamus on tbe 12th day of October, 1940, and tbis court issued an alternative writ making tbe same returnable on tbe 16th day of October, 1940, and tbe defendant has filed in this court bis response and return to the writ, and bearing was continued until tbis day; and1 tbe court, after hearing the argument of counsel, and after examining tbe pleadings and tbe proceedings herein, finds that tbe writ of mandamus as prayed for should issue directing the respondent to certify to tbe Supreme Court bis disqualification in tbe two cases mentioned and described in tbe writ, wherein the petitioner in tbis action stands charged in one case with larceny of domestic animals, and in the other case with tbe crime against nature, both of said cases pending in tbe district court of Payne county, Okla.

Now, therefore, you tbe said Henry W. Hoel, respondent above named, are hereby directed to immediately upon the sendee of tbis writ certify your disqualification to tbe Chief Justice of tbe Supreme Court of tbe State of Oklahoma in said cases, and in tbe meantime you are re *386 strained from making any order or assuming any jurisdiction whatsoever in said cases, or doing anything therein except to certify your disqualification.

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

PEE- CUEIAM.

Now, on this tbe 22nd day of October, 1930, came on to be beard tbe application of tbe petitioner for a peremptory writ of mandamus; and' thereupon, tbe petitioner appears by J. M. Springer, bis attorney, and respondent appears not, neither in person nor by attorney, but having heretofore on the 16th day of October, 1940, filed bis written verified response; and thereupon petitioner introduces bis evidence and rests; and thereupon tbe case was duly argued to the court, and tbe court after having beard tbe evidence and argument of counsel, and after examining the pleadings and proceedings in this case, and being fully advised in tbe premises, finds: That tbe plaintiff filed his petition for writ of mandamus on tbe 12th day of October, 1940, and tbis court issued an alternative writ making tbe same returnable on tbe 16th day of October, 1940, and tbe defendant has filed in this court bis response and return to the writ, and bearing was continued until tbis day; and1 tbe court, after hearing the argument of counsel, and after examining tbe pleadings and tbe proceedings herein, finds that tbe writ of mandamus as prayed for should issue directing the respondent to certify to tbe Supreme Court bis disqualification in tbe two cases mentioned and described in tbe writ, wherein the petitioner in tbis action stands charged in one case with larceny of domestic animals, and in the other case with tbe crime against nature, both of said cases pending in tbe district court of Payne county, Okla.

Now, therefore, you tbe said Henry W. Hoel, respondent above named, are hereby directed to immediately upon the sendee of tbis writ certify your disqualification to tbe Chief Justice of tbe Supreme Court of tbe State of Oklahoma in said cases, and in tbe meantime you are re *386 strained from making any order or assuming any jurisdiction whatsoever in said cases, or doing anything therein except to certify your disqualification.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1940 OK CR 132, 106 P.2d 846, 70 Okla. Crim. 384, 1940 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marrs-v-hoel-oklacrimapp-1940.