City of Tulsa v. Coppedge

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

City of Tulsa v. Coppedge

1933 OK 15, 18 P.2d 514, 162 Okla. 61, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 490

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 24, 1933

Docket21075

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK 15 (City of Tulsa v. Coppedge) 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

City of Tulsa v. Coppedge, 1933 OK 15, 18 P.2d 514, 162 Okla. 61, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 490 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER, CURIAM.

January 3, 1930, plain-tic filed its original action herein to require the defendant as trial judge to do and perform certain acts alleged to be required by this court in a former opinion therein mentioned.

Plaintiff herein has filed, an exhaustive brief and has served the same on the parties really interested in this action, which brief supports the petition, and neither the defendant named nor any one in his behalf, nor the party at interest, has responded thereto, nor given excuse for failure to reply to the petition or brief of plaintiff in error. Numerous decisions of this court hold that when the parties1 affected ignore the order of the court to- file pleadings or briefs, it is not necessary to search the record to maintain the rights of those parties. City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233., 253 P. 481.

For the reasons stated, this case is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court that a certain order entered in case No. 19137 of this , court (see McReynolds v. City of Tulsa, 137 Okla. 229, 279 P. 327) be obeyed, and that the judgment of McReynolds v. City of Tulsa, case No. 2553. in the district court, and the judgment en *62 tered therein be reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to reinstate plaintiff in error’s appeal and demand for a jury trial and further proceedings not inconsistent with the. views therein expressed.

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

PER, CURIAM.

January 3, 1930, plain-tic filed its original action herein to require the defendant as trial judge to do and perform certain acts alleged to be required by this court in a former opinion therein mentioned.

Plaintiff herein has filed, an exhaustive brief and has served the same on the parties really interested in this action, which brief supports the petition, and neither the defendant named nor any one in his behalf, nor the party at interest, has responded thereto, nor given excuse for failure to reply to the petition or brief of plaintiff in error. Numerous decisions of this court hold that when the parties1 affected ignore the order of the court to- file pleadings or briefs, it is not necessary to search the record to maintain the rights of those parties. City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233., 253 P. 481.

For the reasons stated, this case is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court that a certain order entered in case No. 19137 of this , court (see McReynolds v. City of Tulsa, 137 Okla. 229, 279 P. 327) be obeyed, and that the judgment of McReynolds v. City of Tulsa, case No. 2553. in the district court, and the judgment en *62 tered therein be reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to reinstate plaintiff in error’s appeal and demand for a jury trial and further proceedings not inconsistent with the. views therein expressed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 15, 18 P.2d 514, 162 Okla. 61, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-tulsa-v-coppedge-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack