McConkey v. Sorrell

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McConkey v. Sorrell

1911 OK 509, 120 P. 256, 30 Okla. 521, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 491

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 12, 1911

Docket1375

StatusPublished

This text of 1911 OK 509 (McConkey v. Sorrell) 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

McConkey v. Sorrell, 1911 OK 509, 120 P. 256, 30 Okla. 521, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 491 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

SHARP, C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Ottawa county. Rule 7 of this court (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi) requires plaintiff in error in a civil *522 cause to serve a brief ons counsel for defendant in error within forty days after the petition in error has been filed, and at the same time to file fifteen copies of his brief with the clerk of the court. The petition in error in this case was filed January 31, 1910. Plaintiff in error has made no effort to comply with the foregoing rule, neither has he asked for any extension of time. By reason of his failure to file briefs in support of his petition in error, he will be held to have abandoned his appeal and waived his right to have the same heard in this court. Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 Pac. 838.

The appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

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

Opinion by

SHARP, C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Ottawa county. Rule 7 of this court (20 Okla. viii, 95 Pac. vi) requires plaintiff in error in a civil *522 cause to serve a brief ons counsel for defendant in error within forty days after the petition in error has been filed, and at the same time to file fifteen copies of his brief with the clerk of the court. The petition in error in this case was filed January 31, 1910. Plaintiff in error has made no effort to comply with the foregoing rule, neither has he asked for any extension of time. By reason of his failure to file briefs in support of his petition in error, he will be held to have abandoned his appeal and waived his right to have the same heard in this court. Davis v. Elliott, 25 Okla. 433, 106 Pac. 838.

The appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 509, 120 P. 256, 30 Okla. 521, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcconkey-v-sorrell-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack