GANDY v. STATE

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

6 Div. 739.

Attorney(S)

William Conway, of Birmingham, for petitioner. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to exercise complete supervision over the Court of Appeals in accordance with the provisions of Section 140 of the Constitution. Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992. Judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals is reviewable by certiorari, the scope and limit of such review is to search for error apparent on the face of the record. Ex parte Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 190 Ala. 132, 67 So. 256; 4 Ala.Dig., Certiorari, 68. Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

Judges

BROWN, Justice.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

6 Div. 739.

Attorney(S)

William Conway, of Birmingham, for petitioner. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to exercise complete supervision over the Court of Appeals in accordance with the provisions of Section 140 of the Constitution. Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992. Judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals is reviewable by certiorari, the scope and limit of such review is to search for error apparent on the face of the record. Ex parte Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 190 Ala. 132, 67 So. 256; 4 Ala.Dig., Certiorari, 68. Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

Judges

BROWN, Justice.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

GANDY v. STATE.

BROWN, Justice.

We have just ruled that § 3258 of the Code 1923 does not apply to review of the Court of Appeals on certiorari, and under the settled practice this court only reviews questions of law presented by the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Henry Walden v. State, 198 So. 261.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals states that the defendant's specially requested charges that were refused are "fairly and substantially covered by the court's oral charge, and by the numerous charges given at request of defendant."

The writ of certiorari is due to be denied, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed. It is so ordered.

Certiorari denied.

Judgment affirmed.

GARDNER, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

GANDY v. STATE.

Comments