Legal Opinion

Barlow v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 1, 1936No. 26853PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The sole question presented in this appeal is the overruling of the plaintiff in error’s motion for continuance. The granting of a continuance is largely a matter within the discretion of the trial court and the action of the trial court in refusing a continuance will not be reversed on appeal, unless there was a clear abuse of discretion. Johnston v. Shaffer, 96 Okla. 236, 221 P. 748.

Neither the plaintiff in error’s answer nor her affidavit for continuance pleaded or set forth any facts as to payment. The .answer was unverified and simply alleged .“payments for which no credit given” without…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sullins v. DomerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  2. Johnston v. ShafferSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sanditen v. Brooks Flame-Spray, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965
  2. Kurn v. MargolinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
  3. Fisher v. MillspaughSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
  4. Flanagan v. OxleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941
  5. Dublin Sportswear v. CharlettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API