Oklahoma City v. Drinkwater

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Oklahoma City v. Drinkwater

1954 OK 183, 271 P.2d 1108, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 560

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 8, 1954

Docket35916

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1954 OK 183 (Oklahoma City v. Drinkwater) 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

Oklahoma City v. Drinkwater, 1954 OK 183, 271 P.2d 1108, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 560 (Okla. 1954).

Pincite

Opinions

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

This action though commenced by Oklahoma City for other relief against the defendants Wade Drinkwater and Fay L. Drinkwater was converted into an action wherein defendants as owners of lots fronting and abutting on Classen Boulevard immediately adjacent to its intersection with Western Avenue in Oklahoma City sought to recover damages to their property resulting from an alleged change of grade under the provisions of Title 11 O.S.1951 § 82. The court sustained the defendants’ motion for new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict “does not meet the affirmative, considerate approval of the mind and conscience of the court; that it is not responsive to the demands of justice and therefore must be set aside.” Also error of law and improper instructions.

Numerous questions are raised by appellant and appellees, but we will confine our discussion to whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial, and, if not, then other errors complained of may not reoccur on retrial.

In Yarnell v. Kilgore, 15 Okl. 591, 82 P. 990, we said:

“It is the duty of a trial court, where a motion for a new trial contains as one of the grounds therefor that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, to weigh the evidence and to either approve or disapprove the verdict, using its own reason and judgment in determining such matter; and if the verdict is such that its own mind refuses to concur in it after due consideration, and the court honestly believes that the verdict should have been for the adverse party, it should grant a new trial.”

And in the recent case of Thompson v. Chamblee, 206 Okl. 602, 245 P.2d 716, we said that a trial court is vested with broad discretion in granting or denying a new trial, and its action in granting a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that the court erred in some pure, simple and unmixed question of law, or that it acted arbitrarily, or capriciously. From a careful examination of the entire record herein we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

[1110]*1110Without further narration or discussion, the action of the trial court in granting a new trial is affirmed.

WELCH, DAVISON, ARNOLD, and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur. HALLEY, C. J., and CORN, O’NEAL and WILLIAMS, JJ., dissent.

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

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

This action though commenced by Oklahoma City for other relief against the defendants Wade Drinkwater and Fay L. Drinkwater was converted into an action wherein defendants as owners of lots fronting and abutting on Classen Boulevard immediately adjacent to its intersection with Western Avenue in Oklahoma City sought to recover damages to their property resulting from an alleged change of grade under the provisions of Title 11 O.S.1951 § 82. The court sustained the defendants’ motion for new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict “does not meet the affirmative, considerate approval of the mind and conscience of the court; that it is not responsive to the demands of justice and therefore must be set aside.” Also error of law and improper instructions.

Numerous questions are raised by appellant and appellees, but we will confine our discussion to whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial, and, if not, then other errors complained of may not reoccur on retrial.

In Yarnell v. Kilgore, 15 Okl. 591, 82 P. 990, we said:

“It is the duty of a trial court, where a motion for a new trial contains as one of the grounds therefor that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, to weigh the evidence and to either approve or disapprove the verdict, using its own reason and judgment in determining such matter; and if the verdict is such that its own mind refuses to concur in it after due consideration, and the court honestly believes that the verdict should have been for the adverse party, it should grant a new trial.”

And in the recent case of Thompson v. Chamblee, 206 Okl. 602, 245 P.2d 716, we said that a trial court is vested with broad discretion in granting or denying a new trial, and its action in granting a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that the court erred in some pure, simple and unmixed question of law, or that it acted arbitrarily, or capriciously. From a careful examination of the entire record herein we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

[1110]*1110Without further narration or discussion, the action of the trial court in granting a new trial is affirmed.

WELCH, DAVISON, ARNOLD, and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur. HALLEY, C. J., and CORN, O’NEAL and WILLIAMS, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1954 OK 183, 271 P.2d 1108, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oklahoma-city-v-drinkwater-okla-1954.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack