City of Tulsa v. Dowell

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

City of Tulsa v. Dowell

1936 OK 108, 54 P.2d 324, 175 Okla. 628, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 64

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 4, 1936

DocketNo. 26584.

StatusPublished

This text of 1936 OK 108 (City of Tulsa v. Dowell) 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. Dowell, 1936 OK 108, 54 P.2d 324, 175 Okla. 628, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 64 (Okla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition in error was filed June 10. 1935, and on the 25th day of September, 1985, plaintiff in error filed its brief. No brief has been filed by the defendant in error nor excuse offered.for such failure. Under such circumstances, it is not the duty of the court to search the record for some theory upon which to sustain the judgment, but where the allegations of error are reasonably supported in the brief of the plaintiff in error, the court will reverse the cause in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff in error.

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

McNEILL, C. J.. and BAYLESS, WELCH, CORN, and GIB-SON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition in error was filed June 10. 1935, and on the 25th day of September, 1985, plaintiff in error filed its brief. No brief has been filed by the defendant in error nor excuse offered.for such failure. Under such circumstances, it is not the duty of the court to search the record for some theory upon which to sustain the judgment, but where the allegations of error are reasonably supported in the brief of the plaintiff in error, the court will reverse the cause in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff in error.

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

McNEILL, C. J.. and BAYLESS, WELCH, CORN, and GIB-SON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1936 OK 108, 54 P.2d 324, 175 Okla. 628, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-tulsa-v-dowell-okla-1936.