Dixon v. Wingfield

1929 OK 388, 280 P. 1071, 139 Okla. 12, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 199
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 1, 1929
DocketNo. 17307
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1929 OK 388 (Dixon v. Wingfield) 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
Dixon v. Wingfield, 1929 OK 388, 280 P. 1071, 139 Okla. 12, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 199 (Okla. 1929).

Opinion

Where the defendant in error has failed to file a brief, as provided for in rule 7 of the Supreme Court, or failed to give the court any excuse for such failure, and the brief of plaintiff in error reasonably sustains his assignments of error, the Supreme Court will not search the record to find some theory on which the judgment of the trial court, in favor of defendant in error, may be sustained.

This case clearly falls within the above rule, and the judgment or order is hereby reversed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Note. — See "Appeal and Error," 3 C. J. § 1607, p. 1447, n. 46.

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

Related

Provo City v. Paramount Theater Co.
285 P. 645 (Utah Supreme Court, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1929 OK 388, 280 P. 1071, 139 Okla. 12, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-wingfield-okla-1929.