TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Myers v. Bailey

Myers v. Bailey, District Judge

Myers v. Bailey, 1910 OK 106, 109 P. 820
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 26, 1910
Docket
No. 1479
Judges
Kane
Citations
109 P. 8201910 OK 10626 Okla. 1331910 Okla. LEXIS 20
Disposition
Writ denied.
Syllabus
JUDGES — Disqualification—Procedure. A defendant, seeking to disqualify a trial judge upon any ground, must follow the procedure prescribed in section 5, Act. March 22, 1909 ('Sess. Laws 190-9, p .169, c. 14, art. 1). (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Mandamus by James Myers against Frank M. Bailey, District Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Kane

KANE, J.

This is an original action for a writ of mandamus, to require the defendant, as judge of the district court of the Fifteenth judicial district of the state of Oklahoma, to certify to his disqualification to try a criminal case wherein the plaintiff herein is defendant. The affidavit for disqualification states generally that said judge is so biased and prejudiced against the defendant that he will not give said defendant a fair and impartial trial, and that by reason of said bias and prejudice this defendant cannot have a fair and impartial trial before said judge.

The contention of plaintiff is that in this state a person charged with an offense against its laws has a constitutional right to be tried before a judge without prejudice, and that, when his affidavit is filed alleging prejudice, he is not bound to comply with 'the provisions of section 5 of the act of March 22, 1909 (Sess. Laws 1909, p. 169), by setting up the grounds or facts upon which the claim is made that the judge is disqualified. This same question was before the Criminal Court of Appeals of this state in Ex parte Hudson, 3 Okla. Cr. 393 , 106 Pac. 540 , wherein it was held that ‘Tefore the petitioner can invoke the aid of this court he must comply with the requirements of this act or show cause for his failure to do so.” We have examined the original opinion of Furman, P. J., and the opinion on rehearing by Owen, J., with great care, and are satisfied that the conclusion reached by that court is well sustained by reason and authority.

The writ must be denied.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1910: 41911: 11914: 11919: 21920: 11935: 11937: 11942: 21947: 12001: 119102026peak 1910 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Young v. State1942 OK CR 37, 123 P.2d 294
  2. Pierce v. Pierce2001 OK 97, 39 P.3d 791
  3. Prowant v. Sealy1919 OK 304, 187 P. 235
  4. Holloway v. Hall1920 OK 287, 192 P. 219
  5. Strother v. Bolen1919 OK 148, 181 P. 299
  6. Lewis v. Russell, Judge1910 OK CR 171, 111 P. 818

Most recent

  1. Pierce v. Pierce2001 OK 97, 39 P.3d 791
  2. Colonial Trust Co. v. Austin54 A.2d 503 (Conn. 1947)
  3. Wilmoth v. State1942 OK CR 164, 131 P.2d 774
  4. Young v. State1942 OK CR 37, 123 P.2d 294
  5. Pruitt v. State1937 OK CR 105, 70 P.2d 129
  6. Rourke v. Bevis1935 OK 89, 42 P.2d 898

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ex Parte Hudson, 1910 OK CR 17, 106 P. 540 37

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list