Barker v. Forrest

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Barker v. Forrest

1910 OK 57, 108 P. 407, 26 Okla. 12, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 2

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 8, 1910

Docket433

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1910 OK 57 (Barker v. Forrest) 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

Barker v. Forrest, 1910 OK 57, 108 P. 407, 26 Okla. 12, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 2 (Okla. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

The appeal in this case was lodged in this court on October 1, 1908, and the case was regularly assigned for trial at the regular January, 1910, term, which began January 11, 1910. Prior to the time that said case was reached on the calendar, to wit, on January 18, 1910, the defendant in error moved that the appeal be dismissed, for the reason that the plaintiff in error had not prepared and served a brief upon the defendant in error, in compliance with rule 7 of this court (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi). The plaintiff in error having had due service of the filing of said motion, and not having responded thereto, and no brief having been filed in this ease, the motion is accordingly sustained, and the appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

WILLIAMS, J.

The appeal in this case was lodged in this court on October 1, 1908, and the case was regularly assigned for trial at the regular January, 1910, term, which began January 11, 1910. Prior to the time that said case was reached on the calendar, to wit, on January 18, 1910, the defendant in error moved that the appeal be dismissed, for the reason that the plaintiff in error had not prepared and served a brief upon the defendant in error, in compliance with rule 7 of this court (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi). The plaintiff in error having had due service of the filing of said motion, and not having responded thereto, and no brief having been filed in this ease, the motion is accordingly sustained, and the appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK 57, 108 P. 407, 26 Okla. 12, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-forrest-okla-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack