People v. Julia Haddad

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Julia Haddad

11 N.W.2d 241, 306 Mich. 561

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 11, 1943

DocketDocket No. 100, Calendar No. 42,093.

StatusPublished

This text of 11 N.W.2d 241 (People v. Julia Haddad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Julia Haddad, 11 N.W.2d 241, 306 Mich. 561 (Mich. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

The factual background of this appeal is of the same purport and the question of law involved is identical with that involved in People v. John Haddad, ante, 556, the defendant herein being the mother of John Haddad, the defendant in the above-cited case. They were informed against separately for the same offense, that is, resisting an officer in the performance of his duty.

The records in the two cases show identical court procedures, excepting that defendant John called 3 witnesses and the defendant in the instant case called none.

Decision in this case in controlled by the decision in the above-cited case, and the opinion of the Chief Justice therein is adopted as determinative of the issues herein involved.

Judgment affirmed.

BOYLES, C.J., and NORTH, STARR, WIEST, BUTZEL, BUSHNELL, and SHARPE, JJ., concurred. *Page 562

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

The factual background of this appeal is of the same purport and the question of law involved is identical with that involved in People v. John Haddad, ante, 556, the defendant herein being the mother of John Haddad, the defendant in the above-cited case. They were informed against separately for the same offense, that is, resisting an officer in the performance of his duty.

The records in the two cases show identical court procedures, excepting that defendant John called 3 witnesses and the defendant in the instant case called none.

Decision in this case in controlled by the decision in the above-cited case, and the opinion of the Chief Justice therein is adopted as determinative of the issues herein involved.

Judgment affirmed.

BOYLES, C.J., and NORTH, STARR, WIEST, BUTZEL, BUSHNELL, and SHARPE, JJ., concurred. *Page 562

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.W.2d 241, 306 Mich. 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-julia-haddad-mich-1943.