petition for writ error in Illinois

1985In People v. Superior Court (1974), 11 Cal. 3d 793 , 523 P.2d 636 , 114 Cal. Rptr. 596 , the court held that the trial court had discretion to permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea when at the time the guilty plea was entered neither the defendant, his attorney, the prosecutor, nor the court was aware that deportation would be a collateral consequence of the plea.

1985In People v. Superior Court (1974), 11 Cal. 3d 793 , 523 P.2d 636 , 114 Cal. Rptr. 596 , the court held that the trial court had discretion to permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea when at the time the guilty plea was entered neither the defendant, his attorney, the prosecutor, nor the court was aware that deportation would be a collateral consequence of the plea.

1985In People v. Wiedersperg (1975), 44 Cal. App. 3d 550 , 118 Cal. Rptr. 755 , the court held that a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which alleged that the defendant’s attorney did not know that defendant was an alien and did not inform him of the possible consequence of deportation before the defendant’s plea of guilty, stated facts upon which the court could grant the relief sought.

1985In People v. Wiedersperg (1975), 44 Cal. App. 3d 550 , 118 Cal. Rptr. 755 , the court held that a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which alleged that the defendant’s attorney did not know that defendant was an alien and did not inform him of the possible consequence of deportation before the defendant’s plea of guilty, stated facts upon which the court could grant the relief sought.

1962(See Union Asbestos & Rubber Co. v. Industrial Com. 415 Ill. 367 .) While there is no specific provision in the act covering this situation, nevertheless the legislature has never seen fit to alter or amend the act in regard to the manner of payment of accrued compensation, and after nearly 30 years we may assume that it has no quarrel with the procedure approved in the Central Illinois Light and Union Asbestos cases.

1961McNEAL, J., specially concurring: In my opinion this petition for writ of error coram nobis presented no facts not appearing of record, which, if known to the trial court at the time the dismissal for want of prosecution was entered, would have prevented its entry, and it presented no situation within or equivalent to the matters mentioned by the Supreme Court in Glenn v. The People, 9 Ill.2d 335, 340 , 137 N.E.2d 336 , as appropriate for correction under CPA 72.

1961McNEAL, J., specially concurring: In my opinion this petition for writ of error coram nobis presented no facts not appearing of record, which, if known to the trial court at the time the dismissal for want of prosecution was entered, would have prevented its entry, and it presented no situation within or equivalent to the matters mentioned by the Supreme Court in Glenn v. The People, 9 Ill.2d 335, 340 , 137 N.E.2d 336 , as appropriate for correction under CPA 72.

1954This court denied a petition for writ of error, but that determination was vacated by the United States Supreme Court in Jennings v. Illinois, 342 U. S. 104 .

1948In Bradford Supply Co. v. Waite, 392 Ill. 318 , where the contention was made that in denying a petition for appeal, or in the alternative, a petition for writ of error, the court gave the Practice Act an unconstitutional interpretation, we held no constitutional question was raised authorizing a review on writ of error.

1948In In re Estate of Paus, 385 Ill. 550 , we held that where a court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, and possesses power to render the particular judgment, the judgment, even though erroneous, does not raise a constitutional question authorizing a direct appeal.

1947(Touhy v. Ragen, Warden, 303 U. S. 657 .) On August 10, 1946, Roger Touhy filed in the criminal court of Cook county a petition for writ of error coram nobis seeking a new trial.

1942Co. v. Industrial Com. 322 Ill. 403 ; Village of Glencoe v. Industrial Com. 354 id. 190; and People v. Ryan, supra, cited and relied upon in the petition for writ of error, filed by them in this cause.

1942Co. v. Industrial Com. 322 Ill. 403 ; Village of Glencoe v. Industrial Com. 354 id. 190; and People v. Ryan, supra, cited and relied upon in the petition for writ of error, filed by them in this cause.

1923The first question presented is whether from the raising of the blister in the manner it was developed and the setting in of - an infection, with nothing definite to show to what the infection was due or when or where it started, the injury could be considered as having been caused by an accident in the sense contemplated by the Workmen’s Compensation act; whether the circumstances are such that the injury can be traced to a definite time, place and cause, as was held necessary in Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Board, 284 Ill. 378 .