Moberley v. Whitney

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Moberley v. Whitney

1915 OK 422, 149 P. 1144, 48 Okla. 95, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 590

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 8, 1915

Docket4700

StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK 422 (Moberley v. Whitney) 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

Moberley v. Whitney, 1915 OK 422, 149 P. 1144, 48 Okla. 95, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 590 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

The petition in error and the transcript of the record in this case was filed in this court on January 6, 1913. Neither party has filed a brief, nor have they offered any excuse for the failure to do so. It is evident that the proceedings have been abandoned. The judgment of the trial court should therefore be affirmed, under rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix). Nicholson v. Barnes, 42 Okla. 250, 140 Pac. 1155.

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

RITTENHOUSE, C.

The petition in error and the transcript of the record in this case was filed in this court on January 6, 1913. Neither party has filed a brief, nor have they offered any excuse for the failure to do so. It is evident that the proceedings have been abandoned. The judgment of the trial court should therefore be affirmed, under rule 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix). Nicholson v. Barnes, 42 Okla. 250, 140 Pac. 1155.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 422, 149 P. 1144, 48 Okla. 95, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moberley-v-whitney-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack