Legal Opinion
Hixon v. Chamberlin
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 19, 1926No. 15874PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
LOGSDON, C.
The question presented by this proceeding is one of first impression here. Plaintiff quotes and relies on Comp. Stat. 1921, section 603, as being the only statutory provision applicable to the situation here presented, and as not comprehending and embracing the privilege here asserted. That section reads:
“A witness shall not be liable to be sued in a county in which he does not reside, by being served with a summons in such county, while going, returning or attending, in obedience to a subpoena.”
Defendant’s contrary contention is thus stated in his brief:
“The exemption…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Stewart v. RamsaySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Burroughs v. Cocke & WillisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Livengood v. BallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Commonwealth Cotton Oil Co. v. HudsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Bearman v. HuntSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- First Nat. Bank of Seminole v. HenshawSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- Severn v. Adidas SportschuhfabrikenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Parker v. RemySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1950
- Stumpf v. PedersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Mosier v. AspinwallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.