Legal Opinion

Hull v. Hull

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided June 16, 2000No. 93,333PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CARL B. JONES, Presiding Judge:

T1 Appellant (mother) appeals from an order denying her Motion for New Trial in this divorce action. At trial, mother's attorney unsuccessfully moved for a continuance and she was denied the opportunity to call certain witnesses to testify. The witnesses were not allowed to testify because there had been no list of witnesses submitted as required by a previous trial court order. Custody of the parties' six year old son was awarded to the father. On appeal, mother contends the trial court erred in refusing to grant a continuance and erred in awarding…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Abel v. TisdaleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
  2. Mueggenborg v. WallingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
  3. Broadwater v. CourtneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1991
  4. Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee v. MastersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
  5. Rice v. RiceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. HILFIGER v. HILFIGERCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2023
  2. HILFIGER v. HILFIGERCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API