Brown v. Taliaferro

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Brown v. Taliaferro

1933 OK 14, 18 P.2d 514, 161 Okla. 284, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 456

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 24, 1933

Docket22175

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK 14 (Brown v. Taliaferro) 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

Brown v. Taliaferro, 1933 OK 14, 18 P.2d 514, 161 Okla. 284, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 456 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

February 11, 1981, plaintiff filed his petition in the district court of Carter county, and on February 25th, was granted a temporary restraining order. On March 19; 1981, plaintiff ini error appealed to this court and filed his brief on August 5, 1931, and the authorities in that brief reasonably tend to support the assignments of error and allegations of error in the district court.

Two extensions of tíme have been granted defendant in, error; and he has failed to excuse the delay or failure to1 file brief herein. This court need not search the record to find some theory upon which to sustain the action1 of the trial court, hut may reverse and remand this case where the authorities cited as. above stated reasonably tend to sustain the assignments of error. ,

The case is reversed and remanded, with directions to grant the prayer of the petition in error and enter a permanent injunction as prayed for.

Note.—See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 176; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 360.

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

PER CURIAM.

February 11, 1981, plaintiff filed his petition in the district court of Carter county, and on February 25th, was granted a temporary restraining order. On March 19; 1981, plaintiff ini error appealed to this court and filed his brief on August 5, 1931, and the authorities in that brief reasonably tend to support the assignments of error and allegations of error in the district court.

Two extensions of tíme have been granted defendant in, error; and he has failed to excuse the delay or failure to1 file brief herein. This court need not search the record to find some theory upon which to sustain the action1 of the trial court, hut may reverse and remand this case where the authorities cited as. above stated reasonably tend to sustain the assignments of error. ,

The case is reversed and remanded, with directions to grant the prayer of the petition in error and enter a permanent injunction as prayed for.

Note.—See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 176; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 360.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 14, 18 P.2d 514, 161 Okla. 284, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-taliaferro-okla-1933.