Legal Opinion

In re Nickell

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided February 6, 1892PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Original Proceeding in Habeas Corpus.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Green, C.:

The petitioner, James M. Nickell,. alleges that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of Kingman county, because he refused to answer certain questions propounded to him against his will and over his-objections, in a certain case pending in the district court of Kingman county, wherein the state was plaintiff and he was defendant, on the 28th day of December, 1891. The material facts are, that on the 26th day of December, 1891, there was pending in the district court of Kingman county a criminal action against the petitioner for selling liquor.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. HenthornSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Root v. MacDonaldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
  2. Merchants' Stock & Grain Co. v. Board of Trade of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
  3. Creekmore v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
  4. Hawley v. WallaceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  5. Ex Parte LandryCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1912

3 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