Mills v. Atl. Coast Line R. R., 63 S.E. 308 (S.C. 1909). · Go Syfert
Search
Mills v. Atl. Coast Line R. R., 63 S.E. 308 (S.C. 1909). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Niehouse v. State (texapp, 1988-11-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Niehouse v. State
Tex. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 171 Tex.Crim. 313 , 350 S.W.2d 344, 347 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 883 , 82 S.Ct. 126 , 7 L.Ed.2d 83 (1961).
cited Cited "see" Jerry Lane Jurek v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 313 , 350 S.W.2d 344 (1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 883 , 82 S.Ct. 126 , 7 L.Ed.2d 83 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rodriguez v. State
Tex. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Smith v. State, 171 Tex.Crim. 313 , 350 S.W.2d 344, 346 , cert denied, 368 U.S. 883 , 82 S.Ct. 126 , 7 L.Ed.2d 83 (1961); Johnson v. State, 169 Tex.Crim. 612 , 336 S.W.2d 175, 179-80 , cert denied, 364 U.S. 927 , 81 S.Ct. 355 , 5 L.Ed.2d 267 (1960). 10 Hilliard v. State Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Crim.App.1974), is a crucial case in understanding the felony murder rule in Texas under articles 42 and 1256 11 of the 1925 Penal Code, and is important to our later discussion of the merger doctrine.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mills
v.
Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co.
7091.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan 8, 1909.
63 S.E. 308
1909 S.C. LEXIS 6
Messrs. P.A. Willcox, H.E. Davis , and T. Moultrie Mordecai , for the motion. Messrs. Legare and Holman , contra.
ORDER BY CHIEF JUSTICE..
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Order by

ChiEE Justice.

Under the case of the State v. Lee, 80 S. C., 367, recently decided by this Court en banc, the Circuit Court has jurisdiction to entertain a motion for a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal in this Court, and the proper practice is to make such motion in that Court.

[*127] This Court is, however, not precluded from hearing the appeal now pending, and will do so unless there is other ground for continuance.