Crowley v. City of Tulsa

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Crowley v. City of Tulsa

300 P. 404, 149 Okla. 294

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 16, 1931

Docket20957

StatusPublished

This text of 300 P. 404 (Crowley v. City of Tulsa) 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

Crowley v. City of Tulsa, 300 P. 404, 149 Okla. 294 (Okla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Tulsa county in an action wherein the plaintiff in error was plaintiff. The plaintiff in error has served and filed his brief in this cause as required by the rules of this court. The defendant in error has failed to file any brief or to offer any excuse for his failure to do so. We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error, and the assignments of error are reasonably supported by the authorities cited therein. Under the oft-repeated holding of this court, we are not required to brief a case on behalf of defendant in error, or to search the record to find some reason why the judgment should be sustained. Home State Bank v. Oklahoma State Bank, 51 Okla 368, 151 Pac. 1044; Love Motor Co. v. Croskell, 141 Okla. 139, 284 Pac. 297. The judgment o'f the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

McNEILL, J., disqualified, not, participal ing.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Tulsa county in an action wherein the plaintiff in error was plaintiff. The plaintiff in error has served and filed his brief in this cause as required by the rules of this court. The defendant in error has failed to file any brief or to offer any excuse for his failure to do so. We have examined the brief of plaintiff in error, and the assignments of error are reasonably supported by the authorities cited therein. Under the oft-repeated holding of this court, we are not required to brief a case on behalf of defendant in error, or to search the record to find some reason why the judgment should be sustained. Home State Bank v. Oklahoma State Bank, 51 Okla 368, 151 Pac. 1044; Love Motor Co. v. Croskell, 141 Okla. 139, 284 Pac. 297. The judgment o'f the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

McNEILL, J., disqualified, not, participal ing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 P. 404, 149 Okla. 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowley-v-city-of-tulsa-okla-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack