Legal Opinion

Greenwood v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1889No. 14,666PublishedCited by 14 opinions

From the Elkhart Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, C. J.

This judgment must be reversed. Objection was duly made to the judge of the court, and he called a member of the bar to preside as judge, but made no written appointment, as the law requires. The appellant at once objected to the competency of the attorney called by the judge, and thus presented the question at the earliest opportunity. As there was no written appointment, and as-the objection was promptly interposed, the appeal must be sustained. Schlungger v. State, 113 Ind. 295; Herbster v. State, 80 Ind. 484; Evans v. State, 56 Ind. 459; Kennedy v. State, 53 Ind. 542.

In sustaining this…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Smurr v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Schlungger v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Kennedy v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Herbster v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  5. Evans v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1877

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Lillie v. TrentmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Bowen v. SwanderIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  3. State v. HolmesWashington Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Corporation Funding & Finance Co. v. StoffregenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  5. Skelton v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1898

9 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