Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Ragland

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 3, 1951No. 38,441Published

1DissentSmith, J.

I am unable to concur in the majority opinion. I believe we should have ordered the trial court to direct the clerk of the court to forthwith deliver this currency to the defendant. I think it is so unusual for the public officials to do otherwise after one accused of theft has been acquitted that we have failed to grasp the background of similar situations. As I examine the authorities from the time of the “Appeal of Robbery” down through the statutes providing for the Writ of Restitution up to the enactment of our statutes, Chap. 129, Art. 9, Sec. 9, of the Laws of 1855 the attention of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Robert Simpson Co. v. KempnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
  2. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
  3. Welch v. GleasonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1888

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

Powered by the Exa API