Legal Opinion

Diehl v. Hieronymus

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided March 29, 1967No. 41536PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DAVISON, Justice.

The defendant in error, E. D. Hieronymus (plaintiff below) instituted this action in the lower court against the plaintiff in error, Lawrence J. Diehl (defendant) to secure partition of the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 27 North Range 6 East of the I.M., Osage County, Oklahoma. The parties will be referred to by their trial court designation. It is not controverted that plaintiff owned an undivided three-fourths interest and defendant owned an undivided one-fourth interest in the quarter section of land. The partition action was pursuant to the statutory…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Wolfe v. StanfordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
  2. White v. SmythTexas Supreme Court · 1948
  3. White v. SmythCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1947
  4. Wilkerson v. WilkersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
  5. Collier v. CollierSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. De Mik v. CargillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1971
  2. Chesmore v. ChesmoreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1971
  3. Prickett v. MooreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
  4. Keel v. KeelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1970
  5. Cain v. ChristieCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1997

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API