City of Tulsa v. Cockrell

1945 OK 191, 159 P.2d 711, 195 Okla. 518, 1945 Okla. LEXIS 428
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided June 12, 1945·No. No. 31473.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error has appealed from a judgment entered against it in the trial court, and on August 11, 1943, filed its brief. The authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of error. The defendant in error has filed no brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances, as stated in Gooldy v. Hines, 186 Okla. 583, 99 P. 2d 498, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon which to sustain the action of the trial court, but the cause may be reversed and remanded, with directions.

The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to vacate the judgment entered for the defendant in error and to enter judgment for the plaintiff in error.

GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.

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

City of Tulsa v. Cockrell, 1945 OK 191, 159 P.2d 711, 195 Okla. 518, 1945 Okla. LEXIS 428 (Okla. 1945).

1945 OK 191 (City of Tulsa v. Cockrell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henry v. Harris
1952 OK 100 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1952)
Winters v. Winters
1947 OK 246 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1947)