Legal Opinion
Wilson v. Moore
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 27, 1959No. 38026PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
The dispute in these two consolidated actions concerns the boundary between the NEj4 and the NWJ4 of Section 1, Township 16 North, Range 12 East, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Two actions to quiet title were originally instituted against the defendant in error Ruth Moore: one, No. 89172, by the owners of Lot 2, which is the NW'54 of the NE}4, of said section, Harold & Ruby Dye; and the other, No. 89171, by the owners of the SW'j4 of the NE}4 of said section, Herbert & Verbal Wilson. The actions were consolidated for trial and have been consolidated for appeal. We shall dispose of both actions in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- French v. PearceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Johnson v. WhelanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
- Taylor v. Enid National BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
- Walthers v. TannerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
- Bennett v. GrotherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hammer v. BellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1964
- Smith v. PettijohnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
- State ex rel. Remy v. AgarSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
- Maggio v. PruzanskyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988
- Whytock v. GreenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1963