Legal Opinion

Borman v. Geib

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided November 6, 1923No. 12390PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

LYONS, C.

It is necessary for us to notice only one error of the trial court, which necessarily requires a reversal by this court. When the case was called for trial, the plaintiff was sick in Dallas, Texas, and was unable to attend the trial, as is evidenced by the certificate of physicians. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the court for a continuance, setting up these facts and setting up also certain facts to which plaintiff would testify if present. Opposing counsel agreed that the affidavit might be read as a deposition, and thereupon the court ordered the trial to proceed. The court…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McMahan v. NorickSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1902
  2. Wood v. JonesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Onaka v. OnakaHawaii Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Reed v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1965
  3. Harrah v. MorgenthauDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1937
  4. Tomash v. EvansWyoming Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Beck v. PeardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938

3 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