Atkinson v. Burkett

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Atkinson v. Burkett

1952 OK 457, 251 P.2d 810, 207 Okla. 586, 1952 Okla. LEXIS 867

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 23, 1952

DocketNo. 35584

StatusPublished

This text of 1952 OK 457 (Atkinson v. Burkett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkinson v. Burkett, 1952 OK 457, 251 P.2d 810, 207 Okla. 586, 1952 Okla. LEXIS 867 (Okla. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

BINGAMAN, J.

The defendants in error move to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the case-made attached to and made a part of the petition in error does not show that it was filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court as required by 12 O.S. 1951 §958. The case-made does not show that it has been filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court and the statutory time in which to perfect an appeal has expired. Following an unbroken line of decisions by this court, the motion must be sustained. Banks v. Watson, 40 Okla. 450, 139 P. 306; Dailey v. Citizens National Bank of Pawhuska, 89 Okla. 94, 214 P. 116; In re Sexton’s Estate, 90 Okla. 37, 215 P. 773; Miller v. Berryman, 169 Okla. 524, 37 P. 2d 975; Harner v. Beese, 175 Okla. 641, 54 P. 2d 321.

Appeal dismissed.

HALLEY, V.C.J., and WELCH, CORN, GIBSON, DAVISON, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BINGAMAN, J.

The defendants in error move to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the case-made attached to and made a part of the petition in error does not show that it was filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court as required by 12 O.S. 1951 §958. The case-made does not show that it has been filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court and the statutory time in which to perfect an appeal has expired. Following an unbroken line of decisions by this court, the motion must be sustained. Banks v. Watson, 40 Okla. 450, 139 P. 306; Dailey v. Citizens National Bank of Pawhuska, 89 Okla. 94, 214 P. 116; In re Sexton’s Estate, 90 Okla. 37, 215 P. 773; Miller v. Berryman, 169 Okla. 524, 37 P. 2d 975; Harner v. Beese, 175 Okla. 641, 54 P. 2d 321.

Appeal dismissed.

HALLEY, V.C.J., and WELCH, CORN, GIBSON, DAVISON, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1952 OK 457, 251 P.2d 810, 207 Okla. 586, 1952 Okla. LEXIS 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-burkett-okla-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack