Legal Opinion

Ruch v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1924No. 18643PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C. J.

The grounds set forth in the plea in abatement are no longer urged in this court, but two of the grounds set forth in the motion to quash are urged. The first of these contends that the indictment is insufficient because the foreman of the grand jury did not indorse the indictment “A true bill.” The indictment was the usual printed form, which has those words printed upon the bach, and the foreman merely signed his name thereto. Section 13571 provides: “The foreman shall indorse on such indictment the words ‘A true bill,’ and subscribe his name as foreman.” The other ground of the motion to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Blake v. GravesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
  2. State v. TurnerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1892

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State v. LundgrenOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Hammond v. BrownDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1971
  4. Coles v. HarschOregon Supreme Court · 1929
  5. State v. LundgrenOhio Supreme Court · 1995

17 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