Warren v. Caruthers

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Warren v. Caruthers

1912 OK 831, 128 P. 1132, 35 Okla. 234, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 557

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 5, 1912

Docket4068

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK 831 (Warren v. Caruthers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Warren v. Caruthers, 1912 OK 831, 128 P. 1132, 35 Okla. 234, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 557 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

June 12, 1912, there was filed in this court the petition of Frank L. Warren, praying a writ of mandamus be issued to Hon. John Caruthers, as judge of the Ninth judicial district of Oklahoma, requiring him to certify to his disqualification to sit in a cause then pending before him, the title of the same being Warren v. Canard, the judgment in which on appeal in a prior trial from the same court was reversed. Warren v. Canard, 30 Okla. 514, 120 Pac. 599. In a brief filed November 19, 1912, the respondent asserts that it is not only not true that he is anxious to sit again as judge in the said case, but that no kind of an inducement except a direct command from this court could induce him to sit therein. Under these circumstances a consideration and determination of the issues presented by the parties is not essential. This court, with that statement before it, cannot assume that respondent will do otherwise than to provide means according to law for another judge to sit in the trial of the case. Under these circumstances the issues made by the parties on the record are purely hypothetical, which this court has frequently held it will mot determine. The proceeding is therefore, accordingly, dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

June 12, 1912, there was filed in this court the petition of Frank L. Warren, praying a writ of mandamus be issued to Hon. John Caruthers, as judge of the Ninth judicial district of Oklahoma, requiring him to certify to his disqualification to sit in a cause then pending before him, the title of the same being Warren v. Canard, the judgment in which on appeal in a prior trial from the same court was reversed. Warren v. Canard, 30 Okla. 514, 120 Pac. 599. In a brief filed November 19, 1912, the respondent asserts that it is not only not true that he is anxious to sit again as judge in the said case, but that no kind of an inducement except a direct command from this court could induce him to sit therein. Under these circumstances a consideration and determination of the issues presented by the parties is not essential. This court, with that statement before it, cannot assume that respondent will do otherwise than to provide means according to law for another judge to sit in the trial of the case. Under these circumstances the issues made by the parties on the record are purely hypothetical, which this court has frequently held it will mot determine. The proceeding is therefore, accordingly, dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 831, 128 P. 1132, 35 Okla. 234, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-caruthers-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack