Pittman v. the City of El Reno
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Petition for Rehea/ring. Defendant- in error filed its petition for a rehearing, and the same was granted at the June sitting of this term. The material facts are stated in the former opinion, 2 Okla. 414, 37 Pac. 851, and in this opinion,
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dale, O. J.:
Upon petition for rehearing, the proposition is forcibly presented that this court, in its former opinion, failed to reach a correct conclusion upon the primary question involved in this case. This case arose' under the Code of 1890. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony, the defendant filed a demurrer and tendered all the evidence. The trial court sustained such demurrer, and the sole question before us is the ruling upon the demurrer. The facts as set forth in the former opinion are correct, and, summarized, may be stated as…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Buesching v. St. Louis Gaslight Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Town of Gosport v. EvansIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- City of Indianapolis v. CookIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Parkhill v. Town of BrightonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
- Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. BrannaganIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- City of Tulsa v. HarmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Miller v. PriceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- City of Hugo v. NanceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Bohl v. City of Dell RapidsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
- City of Bluffton v. McAfeeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.