Jones v. Novotny
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
WELCH, Justice.
This cause is before us on two separate appeals, however, by stipulation and order they have been consolidated.
Plaintiffs have presented their argument for reversal under nine separate propositions.
First, they contend that the trial court erred in striking paragraph No. 6 from the petition. This paragraph pleaded facts showing that the decedent was incompetent to execute said deeds and conveyances, and facts which showed the intentions of decedent in making disposition of her property.
Upon examination of the petition we find allegations elsewhere therein which are very similar…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Dodson Williams v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Tate v. MurphySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1949
- Barton v. HookerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
- Watkins v. McComberSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
- Wat Henry Pontiac, Inc. v. PitcockSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1956
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
- Baker v. BakerCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1985
- Hildebrand v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
- Sanditen v. Brooks Flame-Spray, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965
- Mercer v. MercerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.