Legal Opinion

Adcock v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided September 23, 1929PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Haet, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). It is earnestly contended by counsel for appellant that the circuit court erred in refusing- to continue the case on account of the illness of one of his attorneys. The record shows that both of the attorneys for the defendant represented him at his examining trial. After the indictment was found, the case was set for trial at an adjourned term of court. Both of his attorneys were present, but one of them represented that he was ill with appendicitis, and had been in bed all the day before. The court refused to continue the case, and both the attorneys…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Rhea v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  2. Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  3. Lowmack v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  4. Tignor v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
  5. Parsley v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Clements v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
  2. Goynes v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  3. Anderson v. ErberichSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
  4. Bramlett v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API