Hoover v. Harris

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hoover v. Harris

1927 OK 108, 255 P. 154, 124 Okla. 240, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 214

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 12, 1927

Docket17162

StatusPublished

This text of 1927 OK 108 (Hoover v. Harris) 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

Hoover v. Harris, 1927 OK 108, 255 P. 154, 124 Okla. 240, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 214 (Okla. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

RILEY, J.

On February 2, 1926, a petition for writ of prohibition was filed by petitioners in an original action in this court. On said date an alternative writ of prohibition was issued by this court to the respondent, Thomas S. Harris, county judge of Creek county, directing him to show cause on the 6th day of February, 1926, why the writ should not be made absolute and permanent. No return has been made by the respondent, and no cause shown as to why said writ should not be made permanent.

By the issuance of the alternative writ, prima facie showing was considered ns having- been made .as to the justice and merit of the relief sought, and by reason of the default of respondent the alternative writ is made absolute.

BRANSON, O. J., MASON, V. C. J., and PHELPS, LESTER, CLARK, and KEENER, JJ., concur. HARRISON and HUNT, JJ., absent, not participating.

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

RILEY, J.

On February 2, 1926, a petition for writ of prohibition was filed by petitioners in an original action in this court. On said date an alternative writ of prohibition was issued by this court to the respondent, Thomas S. Harris, county judge of Creek county, directing him to show cause on the 6th day of February, 1926, why the writ should not be made absolute and permanent. No return has been made by the respondent, and no cause shown as to why said writ should not be made permanent.

By the issuance of the alternative writ, prima facie showing was considered ns having- been made .as to the justice and merit of the relief sought, and by reason of the default of respondent the alternative writ is made absolute.

BRANSON, O. J., MASON, V. C. J., and PHELPS, LESTER, CLARK, and KEENER, JJ., concur. HARRISON and HUNT, JJ., absent, not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1927 OK 108, 255 P. 154, 124 Okla. 240, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoover-v-harris-okla-1927.