State v. Bull
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1Opinion of the Court
WILLIAMSON, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory ruling in the Superior Court denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss an indictment charging larceny by embezzlement under 17 M.R.S.A. § 2107. 1
The case was properly reported to us under Rule 37A(a) M.R.Crim.P. 2 to determine the validity of the indictment. In the event the indictment should be held invalid, the decision “would * * * finally dispose of the action.” 3 Maine Pract.Rules (Glassman) § 37A.1. The defendant, being the party aggrieved, is treated as the appellant. Rule 37A(c), M.R.Crim.P.
In her brief she states two…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Moore v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- State v. RossOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- State v. CharetteSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1963
- State v. RoweSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1968
- Commonwealth v. BennettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. ToppiSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1971
- State v. BarlowSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
- State v. FarmerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
- State v. St. ClairSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
- Logan v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1970
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.