Legal Opinion
Nolan v. Schaetzel
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided September 9, 1930No. 19554PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EAGLETON, O.
The plaintiff in error appealed on a transcript. In his petition in error he recites 13 assignments of error. Most of these assignments have been waived by his failure to set forth in his brief, as required by rule 26 of this court, argument or citation of authorities of said assignments in error. Brigman v. Chaney, 27 Okla. 510, 112 Pac. 993; Harrelson v. Brown, 131 Okla. 267, 268 Pac. 731.
He briefs the appeal under seven propositions which we will consider separately. Some of the questions are not properly before this court, but we will dispose of each of them.
He first contends…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brigman v. CheneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Harrelson v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Neil v. Union Nat. Bank of ChandlerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Bristow v. ScottSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
- Franse v. ArmbusterNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by15 opinions
- McKee v. Producers & Refiners Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Sabin v. LevorsenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
- Beale v. LingquistMontana Supreme Court · 1932
- Graf Packing Co. v. PelphreySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Greenwood v. PriceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.