Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Woolley v. Shaw

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 23, 1943No. 31061Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDavison, J.

I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it recognizes that jurisdiction over a part of the property is vested in the district court of Pottawatomie county, but I am unable to agree with the conclusion announced insofar as it approves administration of the remainder of the property by a receiver appointed by the district court of Tulsa county. It is my opinion that the writ of prohibition should issue to prevent the district court of Tulsa county from exercising jurisdiction through its receiver over any of the leasehold estates situated in Pottawatomie county.

The jurisdiction of that…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Empire Trust Co. v. BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1916
  2. State Freeling, Atty. Gen. v. Kight, County JudgeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
  3. State v. Jacksonville, Pensacola & Mobile RailroadSupreme Court of Florida · 1875
  4. Schofield v. MeltonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  5. Ingram v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931

9 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