Legal Opinion

Mountcastle v. Coppedge

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 8, 1928No. 19223PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRiley, J.

By this original action a writ of mandamus is sought to secure a construction of a mandate accompanying an opinion of this court contrary to the manner in which the honorable district judge, respondent, has construed the order of this court and in accord with the view of petitioners.

Honorable Ad V. Coppedge, district judge, respondent, has filed his response, waiving notice, and saying he has entered judgment in accord with the mandate of this court as interpreted by him, but that he is willing and ready to modify the decree in any manner this court may indicate.

This matter involves the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Woods v. VannSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Carlock v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  2. Wagner v. EarpSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
  3. Whitney v. WhitneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API