Rugg v. Layton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Rugg v. Layton

1923 OK 647, 218 P. 660, 92 Okla. 262, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 857

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 18, 1923

Docket14279

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1923 OK 647 (Rugg v. Layton) 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

Rugg v. Layton, 1923 OK 647, 218 P. 660, 92 Okla. 262, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 857 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C.

The plaintiffs commenced their original action in this court for a writ of certiorari to the county superintendent of Canadian county, to send up the record and proceedings had before the county superintendent in the matter of changing the boundary of a school district. This cause was regularly submitted. The plaintiff has failed to file his brief as required by the rule of this court. Where the plaintiff, or plaintiff in error, fails to prepare, serve, and file brief, as required by the rules of this court, after a cause has been set down for hearing, and fails to request an extension of time for so doing, the cause will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Therefore, it is recommended that this cause be dismissed.

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

STEPHENSON, C.

The plaintiffs commenced their original action in this court for a writ of certiorari to the county superintendent of Canadian county, to send up the record and proceedings had before the county superintendent in the matter of changing the boundary of a school district. This cause was regularly submitted. The plaintiff has failed to file his brief as required by the rule of this court. Where the plaintiff, or plaintiff in error, fails to prepare, serve, and file brief, as required by the rules of this court, after a cause has been set down for hearing, and fails to request an extension of time for so doing, the cause will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Therefore, it is recommended that this cause be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 647, 218 P. 660, 92 Okla. 262, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rugg-v-layton-okla-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack