Smith v. State
Smith, Plaintiff in Error, v. State, Defendant in Error
Opinion
Per Curiam.
Mr. Justice Connor T. Hansen having taken no part in the decision upon this writ of error to review the judgment and the other members of the court being equally divided on the question of whether the judgment should be affirmed or reversed, Mr. Chief Justice Hallows, Mr. Justice Wilkie, and Mr. Justice Heffernan being of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed or a new trial ordered, and Mr. Justice Beil-fuss, Mr. Justice Hanley, and Mr. Justice Robert W. Hansen being of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed under the rule.
Judgment affirmed.
Connor T. Hansen, J., took no part.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.