Legal Opinion
Agent v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Decided June 7, 1920No. A-3358PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatson, J.
(after stating the facts as above). It is first contended that the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to quash the amended information. .
The question raised by said motion was, in effect, that the defendant had not had a preliminary examination upon the charge as contained’ in the amended information. In support of the motion, there was attached to said motion to quash certified copies of the preliminary complaint, and also the transcript of the examining and committing magistrate. 'The preliminary complaint charged the defendant with “unlawfully, willfully, wrongfully, and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Holt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Spies v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Stouse v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911
- Holmes v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911
- Turner v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1910
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- McKinnon v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1956
- Pueblo v. CartagenaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1939
- Mason v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1923
- Ware v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1930
- Filler v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1923
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.