Legal Opinion

Grand River Dam Authority v. Eaton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 26, 1990No. 75022PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAVENDER, Justice.

The question we decide here is whether an appeal should be deemed moot and subject to dismissal when during the pendency of the appeal to reverse a money judgment the judgment debtor, rather than either obtaining a stay of the judgment or filing a supersedeas bond as allowed by 12 O.S. 1981, § 968, pays the final judgment because the debtor is deemed to have acquiesced in the judgment by paying it. The trial court, acting as our Special Master, being presented with no valid basis for Appellants’, Don E. and Nadja L. Eaton’s, failure to obtain a supersedeas bond (e.g.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Franzen v. DubinokCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  2. Hayes v. . NourseNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  3. Adams v. UnterkircherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986
  4. Lucas v. First Nat. Bank of PawneeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  5. Martin Development Co. v. Keeney Construction Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1985

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. the Employers' Workers' Compensation Ass'nSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
  2. Stites v. DUIT Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
  3. McMillian v. HolcombSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
  4. Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C.Alaska Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Wheeler Springs Plaza, LLC v. BeemonNevada Supreme Court · 2003

17 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