Legal Opinion
Neumann v. Arrowsmith
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided February 27, 2007No. 101,650, 101,684PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKauger, J.
T1 The issues presented are: 1) whether, under the facts presented, the motion for new trial filed eleven days after the judgment was filed was timely; and 2) if so, whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. We hold that under the facts presented, the motion for new trial was the functional equivalent of a timely motion to vacate and the trial court did not abuse its discretion vacating its judgment and granting a new trial. 1
FACTS
T2 On April 9, 1999, Robert Neumann (Neumann) went to Dr. Gerald Reed, D.0., for a routine physical examination to establish a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hulsey v. Mid-America Preferred Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- Schepp v. HessSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Amarex, Inc. v. BakerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
- Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee v. MastersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Wilson v. WebbSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2009
- BEYRER v. THE MULESupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2021
- James v. Tyson Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012
- Harris v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2007
- BERKSON v. STATE ex rel. ASKINS AS ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTSSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2023
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.