Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wiglesworth v. Wyrick

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 12, 1976No. 59208Published

1DissentSeiler, Chief Justice

The majority opinion disposes of this proceeding by sustaining respondent’s motion *724to quash. The respondent to whom a writ of habeas corpus is addressed can attack the petition if he desires by a motion to quash the writ. State ex rel. Chase v. Calvird, 324 Mo. 429, 24 S.W.2d 111, 114 (1930). But on a motion to quash the writ, the allegations of the petition are deemed admitted. 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 86, p. 650. A motion to quash tests the sufficiency of the petition for the writ. State ex rel. Stack v. Grimm, 239 Mo. 340, 143 S.W. 450, 454 (1911).

The principal opinion says the foregoing…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1971
  2. State ex rel. Stack v. GrimmSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
  3. State Ex Rel. Chase v. CalvirdSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
  4. Parsons v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API