Legal Opinion
Alexander v. Alexander
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 26, 1937No. 27042Published
1Opinion
On Rehearing.
GIBSON, J.
In the instant case the trial court was requested by defendant to State its reasons for granting plaintiff a new trial. The court’s response was that the plaintiff: had not received a fair trial.
It is the duty of the trial court upon request of a litigant to state its reasons for sustaining a motion for new trial. See Magnolia Pet. Co. v. McDonald, 168 Okla. 255, 32 P. (2d) 909; A. & A. Taxicab Co. v. McCain, 179 Okla. 492, 66 P. (2d) 17. On appeal from an order granting a new trial this court will confine its review to the reasons so assigned by the trial court.
The…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- Poynter v. Beacon Falls Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Woodard v. SandersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- A. & A. Taxicab Co. v. McCainSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. CateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.