State v. Williams
STATE v. LAVON WILLIAMS and DEWEY ARNOLD
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
MCCARTHY, J.
In this ease the facts and questions of law are substantially the same as those presented to this court in the ease of State v. Henry Ricks and Edward Levine, ante, p. 122, 201 Pac. 827 . Upon the authority of that case, the judgment of conviction herein is affirmed.
Rice, C. J., and Dunn, J., concur.
Concurrence
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
BUDGE, J.,
concurs in the conclusions reached, for reasons given in the case of State v. Ricks and Levine, supra.
Lee, J., dissents. (November 1, 1921.)
Concurrence
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
BUDGE, J.
I adhere to my views heretofore expressed and therefore concur.
Rice, C. J., and Lee, J., dissent.
On Rehearing
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
MCCARTHY, J.
The questions raised by the petition for rehearing in this ease are the same as those raised by the petition for rehearing in the ease of State v. Henry Ricks and Edward Levine, ante, p. 122, 201 Pac. 827 . Upon the authority of that decision, the petition for rehearing, of the above-named appellants and each of them, is denied.
Dunn, J., concurs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.