Legal Opinion

Dixon v. State

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 6, 1923No. 10951PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCochran, J.

This is a bastardy proceeding instituted under section 1816, Revised Laws 1910. The plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was tried before a jury in the county court and found guilty and was ordered to pay to the prose-cutrix! the sum of $650 and costs, $200 to be paid immediately, and the balance in installments of $15 per month. From this judgment the defendant has appealed.

It is contended that the county court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the case; that -section 3816, Revised Laws 1910, conferring jurisdiction on the county court to try and determine bastardy…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gird v. BennettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Holcomb v. People ex rel. TuttleIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
  3. State v. HammondUtah Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Powelson v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  5. Silverwood v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Thomas v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
  2. State v. PattonMontana Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Gregory v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
  4. Moore v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
  5. Thomas v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API