Legal Opinion

People ex rel. Barnum v. District Court

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 2, 1923No. 10,665PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Campbell

In response to a rule to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not be issued, the respondents filed an instrument denominated a motion to quash and dismiss, and a demurrer, and a separate instrument, called an answer and return.

1. The petitioner moves to strike the answer and return upon the ground that, by filing the motion and demurrer, respondents waived their answer and return. Our power to issue original writs comes from the Constitution, not from a statute. No procedure has been prescribed by the Constitution. In' exercising this original jurisdiction we may conform, as nearly as…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Everett v. WilsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1905
  2. Balfe v. Rumsey & Sikemeier Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1913
  3. Pierce v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1913

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Shore v. District CourtSupreme Court of Colorado · 1953
  2. Johnson v. Holt's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
  3. Valas v. District CourtSupreme Court of Colorado · 1954
  4. At Home Magazine v. DIST. CT. IN AND FOR 20th JUD. DIST.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1977
  5. Laizure v. BakerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1932

2 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