Webb v. Semans
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
MAXBY, C.
(after stating the-facts). Counsel for plaintiff in error consolidated the assignments of errors and take them up under separate heads. They consolidate the second, seventh, and eighth assignments of error and take them up-under the following proposition : “The findings and judgment of the court is contrary to the evidence.” Counsel devote several pages of their brief to a discussion of this proposition. Thejy set out several images; of testimony under this proposition, but as the jury and the court both found adversely to plaintiff’s contention, and we think there-is ample…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. SchmidtSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Iowa Central Railway Co. v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- McCoy v. McCoySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Baker v. LeavittSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. HartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Rodgers v. HigginsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
- Oklahoma County v. Queen City Lodge No. 197, I. O. O. F.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1945
- City of Del City v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 114Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Sisk v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- Ponca City Bldg. & Loan Co. v. GraffSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.