Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kasner v. Stanmire

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 19, 1944No. 31326Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHurst, J.

I think the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, but not for the reason assigned in the majority opinion. The trial court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law, and the record does not disclose the reasons for the judgment.

1. I cannot reconcile the majority opinion with our prior decisions in Medaris v. Tracey, 170 Okla. 113, 39 P. 2d 30, Street v. Board of Com’rs, 180 Okla. 177, 68 P. 2d 514, and G. A. Nichols, Inc., v. Simpson, 194 Okla. 81, 147 P. 2d 437. The rule followed by these decisions, and which prevails generally throughout the country, is that a description of real…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Cochran v. SullivanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  2. Gulager v. CoonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  3. Haynes v. HellerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
  4. Reeves v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
  5. Medaris v. TraceySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934

5 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