Narrative Opinion Summary
Judgment affirmed with costs based on established precedents from several key cases. The court references the following decisions: Ex parte Parks, Tinsley v. Anderson, and Frank v. Mangum, which establish foundational legal principles; Allen v. Georgia, Felts v. Murphy, Twining v. New Jersey, and Jordan v. Massachusetts, which further clarify relevant legal standards; and Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry, Overton v. Oklahoma, and Stewart v. Kansas City, which provide additional context for the ruling. Representation for the appellant includes Mr. Ralph D. Hurst and Mr. Thomas H. Greevy, while the appellee is represented by Mr. C. Ward Eicher, Mr. George E. Barron, and Mr. Cecil E. Heller.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Judgment Based on Precedentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the judgment by relying on established precedents from key cases that lay down foundational legal principles.
Reasoning: Judgment affirmed with costs based on established precedents from several key cases.
Clarification of Legal Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Decisions in Allen v. Georgia, Felts v. Murphy, Twining v. New Jersey, and Jordan v. Massachusetts were used to further clarify the relevant legal standards applied in this case.
Reasoning: Allen v. Georgia, Felts v. Murphy, Twining v. New Jersey, and Jordan v. Massachusetts, which further clarify relevant legal standards.
Contextual Support for Rulingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The cases Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry, Overton v. Oklahoma, and Stewart v. Kansas City were cited to provide additional context for the court's ruling.
Reasoning: Consolidated Turnpike v. Norfolk &c. Ry, Overton v. Oklahoma, and Stewart v. Kansas City, which provide additional context for the ruling.
Reference to Foundational Legal Principlessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court referenced decisions such as Ex parte Parks, Tinsley v. Anderson, and Frank v. Mangum to establish foundational legal principles relevant to the case.
Reasoning: The court references the following decisions: Ex parte Parks, Tinsley v. Anderson, and Frank v. Mangum, which establish foundational legal principles.