Great American Refining Co. v. Pappenfuss

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Great American Refining Co. v. Pappenfuss

1923 OK 443, 216 P. 927, 91 Okla. 189, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 708

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 3, 1923

Docket11507

StatusPublished

This text of 1923 OK 443 (Great American Refining Co. v. Pappenfuss) 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

Great American Refining Co. v. Pappenfuss, 1923 OK 443, 216 P. 927, 91 Okla. 189, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 708 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C.

The plaintiffs eomenced their action in the district court of Pawnee county, against the defendant for damages to real estate owned by the plaintiffs. In the trial of the cause judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs and against the defendant for the alleged injury. The defendant has brought error to this court, and upon request of the plaintiff in error the cause was set for oral argument. The plaintiff in error made default in appearance, and has failed to file brief as required by the rules of this court. The defendants in error have filed motion to dismiss the cause for want of prosecution, a copy of the motion being served on the plaintiff in error. The plaintiff in error having failed to request additional time in which to prepare, serve, and file brief, the motion to dismiss is sustained, and the cause is dismissed for want of prosecution.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C.

The plaintiffs eomenced their action in the district court of Pawnee county, against the defendant for damages to real estate owned by the plaintiffs. In the trial of the cause judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs and against the defendant for the alleged injury. The defendant has brought error to this court, and upon request of the plaintiff in error the cause was set for oral argument. The plaintiff in error made default in appearance, and has failed to file brief as required by the rules of this court. The defendants in error have filed motion to dismiss the cause for want of prosecution, a copy of the motion being served on the plaintiff in error. The plaintiff in error having failed to request additional time in which to prepare, serve, and file brief, the motion to dismiss is sustained, and the cause is dismissed for want of prosecution.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 443, 216 P. 927, 91 Okla. 189, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-american-refining-co-v-pappenfuss-okla-1923.