Legal Opinion

Ryker v. Dickey

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 12, 1936No. 25266PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPhelps, J.

Plaintiff’s automobile collision damage action was defeated by the verdict of a jury. He contends the trial court erred' in refusing a new trial upon his showing that he was taken by accident and surprise in the testimony of his principal witness, who was mentally befogged from an overdose of sleeping powder. Though this was only the first of plaintiff’s nine witnesses, he failed during the trial to profess surprise.

It is the duty of the party surprised, immediately upon discovery thereof, to take the proper steps to continue or delay the trial in order to protect his interests. He may not…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. McCants v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
  2. Wayne Tank & Pump Co. v. HarperSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
  3. Herring v. HoodSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  4. Doughty v. LaubachSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  5. Incorporated Town of Stigler v. WileySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Edwards v. Ardent Health Services, L.L.C.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2010
  2. Fairmont Creamery Co. v. MarshallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
  3. Baker v. ShawSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
  4. Edwards v. Ardent Health Services, L.L.C.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API