City of Charleston v. Cadle
The City of Charleston v. Richard Cadle
Headnotes
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.
Mr. Chief Justice Phillips announced the opinion of the court:
In this case an opinion was filed with which counsel in the case seemed to be content. The opinion was duly published in 166 Ill. 487 , and certain attorneys who were not engaged in the case applied for leave to appear as amicus curias and file a brief in this case and a petition for rehearing. We have heretofore, in the Northern Grand Division, when the question was presented to us, refused to permit persons who were not attorneys in the case in any way, to appear and file briefs unless it was at the request or assent of the attorneys engaged in the cause, and this motion to appear as amicus curice, and motion to file briefs in the case and a petition for rehearing, are denied. The cause is stricken.
Stricken from docket.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 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.