Legal Opinion

Keef v. State

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1876PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from Victoria. Tried below before the Hon. T. C. Barden.

1Opinion of the Court

Gould, Associate Justice.

The statement of facts in this case is not approved by the presiding judge, and cannot be regarded as properly a part of the record. After the signatures of counsel to what purports to he the statement of facts, (which appears to have been filed December 2, 1875,) follows this certificate, signed officially by the district judge:

“ Jan’y 23, 1876.
“The above ‘statement of facts’ was handed to me in open court after the trial of John Keef, and was not at the time signed by me, owing to my distinctly understanding the attorney for defendant, Mr. Furguson, to say that he…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Koontz v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Land v. MillerTexas Supreme Court · 1852

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Texas & Pacific R'y Co. v. McAllisterTexas Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Johnson v. BlountTexas Supreme Court · 1877
  3. Rasberry v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1909
  4. Mitchell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1877
  5. Brooks v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1877

6 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