Anderson v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1948 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 506. |
| Citation | 251 Ala. 32,36 So.2d 244 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
W. Perry Calhoun, of Dothan, for petitioner.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Hugh F. Culverhouse, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.
James Lonnie Anderson has filed here his petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Anderson v. State.
The State, acting by and through its Attorney General, has filed a motion to strike Anderson's petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that there has been no compliance with Rule 36 of the Rules of Practice of this court, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix, in that said petition, as filed, is not on transcript paper.
The State's motion to strike is well taken and must be granted. The petition, as alleged in the State's motion to strike, is not on transcript paper, but is written out on ordinary legal cap paper and, therefore, is not in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 36. Peterson v. State, 248 Ala. 179, 27 So.2d 30; Allen v. State, 249 Ala. 201, 30 So.2d 483; Haney v. State, Ala.Sup., 36 So.2d 117.
It follows, therefore, that the petition for writ of certiorari filed by James Lonnie Anderson must be stricken. It is so ordered.
Petition for writ of certiorari stricken.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... between the alleged negligence and the injury, the complaint ... need not expressly state that such negligence was the ... proximate cause of the injury. It is sufficient that facts ... are alleged which, on a reasonable construction, ... ...
-
Duckett v. State
...255 Ala. 440, 52 So.2d 166; Nix v. State, 251 Ala. 1, 36 So.2d 456; Barnett v. Patillo, 251 Ala. 1, 36 So.2d 451; Anderson v. State, 251 Ala. 32, 36 So.2d 244; Farley v. State, 251 Ala. 391, 37 So.2d 440; Johns v. Thomas H. Vaughn & Co., 251 Ala. 489, 38 So.2d 21; Haney v. State, 250 Ala. 6......
-
Hochman v. State, 1 Div. 700
...255 Ala. 440, 52 So.2d 166; Nix v. State, 251 Ala. 1, 36 So.2d 456; Barnett v. Patillo, 251 Ala. 1, 36 So.2d 451; Anderson v. State, 251 Ala. 32, 36 So.2d 244; Farley v. State, 251 Ala. 391, 37 So.2d 440; Johns v. Thomas H. Vaughn & Co., 251 Ala. 489, 38 So.2d 21; Haney v. State, 250 Ala. 6......
-
Accardo v. State, 7 Div. 414
...is not on transcript paper. Peterson v. State, 248 Ala. 179, 27 So.2d 30; Allen v. State, 249 Ala. 201, 30 So.2d 483; Anderson v. State, 251 Ala. 32, 36 So.2d 244; Nix v. State, 251 Ala. 1, 36 So.2d 456; Farley v. State, 251 Ala. 391, 37 So.2d 440; Maddox v. City of Birmingham, 255 Ala. 440......