Hazelwood v. Robe

1920 OK 306, 192 P. 566, 79 Okla. 214, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 73
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 14, 1920
Docket11418
StatusPublished

This text of 1920 OK 306 (Hazelwood v. Robe) 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
Hazelwood v. Robe, 1920 OK 306, 192 P. 566, 79 Okla. 214, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 73 (Okla. 1920).

Opinion

HIGGINS, J.

The defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal herein taken. There is no response filed.

In the petition in error it is not assigned as error that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

The plaintiffs in error complain of error on the part of the trial court occurring during the progress of the .trial.

In Nichols v. Dexter, 52 Okla. 152, 152 Pac. 817, it is stated:

“Where the overruling of the motion for a new trial is not assigned as error in the petition in error, errors alleged to (have occurred during the trial are not properly presented, and cannot be reviewed.”

The appeal is dismissed.

RAINEY, O. J., and HARRISON, KANE, PITCHFORD, JOHNSON, McNEILL, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nichols v. Dexter
1915 OK 848 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1920 OK 306, 192 P. 566, 79 Okla. 214, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazelwood-v-robe-okla-1920.