Legal Opinion

Werfelman v. Miller

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 18, 1937No. 26902PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Per curiam

On July 27, ■ 1935, the court entered a judgment on the pleadings ’and the opening statement of counsel. •The corrected journal entry of judgment at the time fails to provide any additional time in which to make and serve ease-made. The cause must be dismissed.

Plaintiff in error urges • that the trial court was • without power to correct the order formerly made by nunc pro tunc order. This court h'as many times decided that the trial court has power to correct, nunc pro tunc, its orders or judgments' to make them speak the truth. In re McQuown, 19 Okla. 347, 91 P. 689; Courtney v. Barnett, 65…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Bettis v. CargileSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  2. Courtney v. BarnettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  3. Bowling v. MerrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  4. In Re McQuownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1907
  5. Taliaferro v. BatisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. McCullough v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981
  2. Fleet v. Sanguine, Ltd.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
  3. A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. the Employers' Workers' Compensation Ass'nSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
  4. State Ex Rel. Nesbitt v. District Court of Mayes CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1968
  5. Depuy v. HoemeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989

16 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