TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Thompson

People v. Thompson, 108 Mich. 583 (1896)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 11, 1896
Judges
Montgomery, Other
Citations
108 Mich. 583
Headnotes
Certiorari — When Lies. Certiorari will not lie to review the action of the circuit court in refusing to quash an indictment found by a grand jury, prior to the final disposition of the case in the lower court.
Summary
Application by Thomas M. Thompson for a writ of certiorari to review the action of Joseph W. Donovan, circuit judge of "Wayne county, in refusing to quash an indictment.

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

Opinion of the Court — Montgomery

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Montgomery, J.

This, is an application for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the circuit court refusing to quash an indictment found against the respondent by a grand jury. No trial has yet been had. The question suggests itself whether the court should interpose at this stage by a writ of certiorari, and arrest the proceedings by a writ upon which a final judgment cannot be given if the action of the circuit court is upheld. In the early case of Palms v. Campau, 11 Mich. 109 , it was held that the writ of certiorari ought not to be so employed. It is true that under peculiar circumstances such a writ was issued in People v. Lauder, 82 Mich. 109 . But at page 126 it was said by Mr. Justice Morse :

“We are not willing that this shall be made a precedent in other cases for the use of the writs of mandamus or certiorari to decide matters arising upon motions to quash, or the issue joined in pleas of abatement to the indictments or informations in criminal cases. Usually such questions must come before us, on writ of error or certiorari, after trial and judgment.”

*584 We have recently, in a number of cases, refused, to grant writs of mandamus or certiorari to review the action of courts in refusing to quash informations. The practice ought to be uniform, and we think the petitioner should be left to the customary remedy.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1900: 11902: 11904: 11907: 11931: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pere Marquette Railroad v. United States Gypsum Co.111 N.W. 913 (Mich. 1907)
  2. Nichols v. Judge of Superior Court89 N.W. 691 (Mich. 1902)
  3. Maynard v. Ingham Circuit Judge83 N.W. 102 (Mich. 1900)
  4. Pickus v. Perry239 N.W. 839 (S.D. 1931)
  5. Toepel v. Wayne Circuit Judge102 N.W. 369 (Mich. 1904)

Most recent

  1. Pickus v. Perry239 N.W. 839 (S.D. 1931)
  2. Pere Marquette Railroad v. United States Gypsum Co.111 N.W. 913 (Mich. 1907)
  3. Toepel v. Wayne Circuit Judge102 N.W. 369 (Mich. 1904)
  4. Nichols v. Judge of Superior Court89 N.W. 691 (Mich. 1902)
  5. Maynard v. Ingham Circuit Judge83 N.W. 102 (Mich. 1900)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Lauder, 46 N.W. 956 (Mich. 1890) 54
Palms v. Campau, 11 Mich. 109 (1862) 9

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