Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Haynes v. Barnett

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided April 13, 1971No. 44544PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

WILLIAMS, Justice.

Defendants in error have moved the Court for dismissal of this appeal asserting failure by plaintiff in error to designate and procure a record on appeal within the interval allowed by rules 1.20 and 1.26, Civil Appeals Rules, 12 O.S.Supp.1970 following § 993 page 325. Plaintiff in error in response resisting the motion to dismiss confesses the assertion and seeks an extension of time to perfect the record. The application by plaintiff in error for extension of time does not factually qualify for consideration under rule 1.26(d) because no designation was ever made. The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1969
  2. Nicklau v. Peoples State BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1969

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re Initiative Petition Numbered XI of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API