Legal Opinion
Hunter v. Hughes
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 6, 1920No. 10508PublishedCited by 38 opinions
Error from District Court, Creek County; M. L. Bozarth, Judge, Action between Charlotte Hunter and Gordon C. Hughes and others. From the judgment, Hunter brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtOwen, C. J.
On motion to dismiss it appears there was no notice given of the intention to appeal, as provided by chapter 219, Sess. L. 1917, repealing section 5238, Rev. Laws 1910. That portion of the chapter providing:
“* * * and the party desiring to appeal shall give notice in open court, either at the time the judgment is rendered, or within ten days thereafter,, of his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court”
• — was held to be mandatory in the case of Cates v. Miles, 67 Oklahoma, 169 Pac. 888, and under the authority of that case the motion to dismiss must be sustained.
The motion is therefore…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cates v. MilesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
3Cited by38 opinions
- Walton, Mayor v. DonnellySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- Hammett Oil Co. v. Gypsy Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- Anthis v. Sullivan Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- Ludey v. Pure Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Panhandle Cooperative Royalty Co. v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1971
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.