Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Honeyman v. Andrew

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 7, 1926No. 17300PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

RUTH, O.

On December 15, 1924, plaintiffs filed their action against R. N. Andrew and Florence Andrew, husband and wife, and allege in their petition that plaintiff F. O. Honeyman is a son of George W. Honeyman, deceased, and a grandson of Sarah J. Honeyman, deceased. The petition then alleges fbe other plaintiffs are heirs of Sarah J. Honeyman, by reason of the fact that they are the children of Sarah J. Honeyman, deceased, or the children of the deceased children of Sarah J. Honeyman, deceased, and as such they allege they are the legal and equitable owners of lots 17, 18, 19, and…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ashmun v. NicholsOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Flesher v. CallahanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  3. Wade v. Crouch and EdwardsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1904
  4. Bowman v. WettigIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
  5. McKeighan v. HopkinsNebraska Supreme Court · 1883

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Coats v. RileySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
  2. Anderson v. FrancisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  3. Segelke v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
  4. Casner v. MeriwetherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
  5. Sears v. State & Department of Wildlife ConservationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1976

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API