Court Opinion

ID: 9864428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:05:28.572279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:06.682370
License: Public Domain

Johnson, C. J., (concurring). I concur in the judgment of the court denying the writ of prohibition, but I cannot agree with other portions of the opinion. In recent cases, notably, Safeway Cab & Storage Co. v. Kincannon, Judge, ante p. 1019, 96 S. W. (2d) 7, and Robinson v. Means, 95 S. W. (2d) 98, all the justices concurring, we expressly held that we would not review issuable questions of fact on applications for writs of prohibition and that such applications would be remitted to the trial courts for determination, appeal and consequent review here. The original opinion recognizes the force of these eases and reaffirms the court’s allegiance thereto, but turns about face and expressly decides the issuable facts against the applicant. These issuable facts should not be decided by this court until the cause reaches this court on appeal.