Legal Opinion
Northrip v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 12, 1974No. 45677PublishedCited by 91 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DOOLIN, Justice.
This matter is before us from an order sustaining motions for summary judgment in favor of the Appellees (Defendants below). We feel called upon to first decide: If Appellees (Defendants below) may present new issues, arguments and authorities to sustain the trial court’s granting of summary judgment which, if raised at time of hearing motions, would have presented a material fact and issue for determination.
We hold they cannot.
A recital of the pleadings and facts is necessary. Plaintiff alleged that he purchased a Ward’s Riverside battery from Montgomery Ward (Ward’s) in Ada,…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Kirkland v. General Motors CorporationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
- Pierce v. Ford Motor Co. Mahone v. Ford Motor CoCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1951
- Curry v. MacKenzieNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by91 opinions
- Spirgis v. Circle K Stores, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
- Frey v. Independence Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- Ross Ex Rel. Ross v. City of ShawneeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- Flanders v. Crane Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- Bivins v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Memorial HospitalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
86 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.