Shipman v. Porter

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Shipman v. Porter

1916 OK 93, 154 P. 1185, 55 Okla. 120, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 121

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 25, 1916

Docket6649

StatusPublished

This text of 1916 OK 93 (Shipman v. Porter) 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

Shipman v. Porter, 1916 OK 93, 154 P. 1185, 55 Okla. 120, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 121 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

MATHEWS, C.

No brief having been filed herein by the plaintiff in error, and the defendant in error having filed a motion to dismiss for that reason on November 15, 1915, and having since filed an additional motion to affirm for failure to file brief, and neither of these motions having received any response from the plaintiff in error, the court is of the opinion that the appeal was for delay only, and, under rule No. 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix), we recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

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

MATHEWS, C.

No brief having been filed herein by the plaintiff in error, and the defendant in error having filed a motion to dismiss for that reason on November 15, 1915, and having since filed an additional motion to affirm for failure to file brief, and neither of these motions having received any response from the plaintiff in error, the court is of the opinion that the appeal was for delay only, and, under rule No. 7 of this court (38 Okla. vi, 137 Pac. ix), we recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 93, 154 P. 1185, 55 Okla. 120, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shipman-v-porter-okla-1916.