Legal Opinion

Wood v. Reed

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 14, 1943No. 31210PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHurst, J.

This is the second appeal herein. In the first appeal we reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case “for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.” Reed v. Wood, 190 Okla. 169, 123 P. 2d 275. After the mandate was received in the court below, the defendant, B. G. Wood, filed a motion to amend his answer and cross-petition, and stated that he desired to offer proof in support of the issues made by his amended pleading. The motion was denied, and this appeal followed.

The facts out of which this controversy arose are fully set out in our first…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ball v. RankinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  2. Gilliland v. BilbySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  3. McIntosh v. LynchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  4. Kelly v. Oliver Farm Equipment Sales Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
  5. Secrest v. SecrestSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. KNOX v. OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2024
  2. Anderson v. BeidlemanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1947
  3. Coxsey v. TaylorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1948
  4. District of Columbia v. HuffmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1945
  5. Stearns v. NortonIdaho Supreme Court · 1950

1 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