Legal Opinion

Maynard v. Ingham Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 8, 1900PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Mandamus by Fred A. Maynard to compel Howard Wiest, circuit judge of Ingham county, to quash an indictment.

1Per curiam

This is an application for a writ of mandamus to require respondent to quash an indictment. In People v. Thompson, 108 Mich. 583 (66 N. W. 478), we held (following the authority of Palms v. Campau, 11 Mich. 109), that we would not, in advance of a final determination of a case, review the action of a circuit judge in refusing to quash an indictment. It was said in that case that the practice ought to be uniform, and the fact was then stated that the court had, in numerous cases not reported, adhered to the same rule. It was strenuously insisted, both on the original application and on a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Palms v. CampauMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
  2. People v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. People v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Nichols v. Judge of Superior CourtMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Steel v. Clinton Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  3. City of Flint v. Genesee Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Pickus v. PerrySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Pere Marquette Railroad v. United States Gypsum Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API