Legal Opinion

Martin v. Pribil

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided November 7, 1939No. 29011PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDanner, J.

The action was by the payee of a promissory note against the makers thereof. The trial judge submitted the cause to a referee, who received evidence, returned findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommendation that judgment be entered for the defendants. The trial judge adopted, confirmed, and approved the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment for defendants, from which judgment the plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff’s contention is that the referee erred in a conclusion of law concerning the burden of proof. If the referee erred in this connection, then…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Light v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Stone Co. v. RichSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  3. Pearce v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
  4. Terry v. KleinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  5. State Finance Co. v. Hershel California Fruit Products Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Baker National Bank v. LestarMontana Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Bette L. Voigt v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1967
  3. Boyer v. DawsonOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  4. State ex rel. McGehee v. 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Vin: 1G3NF11U9HM234685, Tag: BYX 624Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API