Legal Opinion

Oklahoma Pipe Line Co. v. Hoefer

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 16, 1924No. 13709PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

LOGSDON, C.

By its petition in error defendant has assigned 18 specifications of error, but in its brief only four propositions are urged as grounds for reversal of the judgment. The first and second propositions involve the same question and will be considered and disposed of together. The first proposition reads:

“The court should have sustained the demurrer to the evidence interposed by the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s case.”

The second proposition reads:

“The court should have instructed a verdict for the defendant at the close of all the evidence.”

These two…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. ShuttSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  2. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. BaroniSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  3. Holland Banking Co. v. DicksSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  4. Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  5. Wray v. HowardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. ThurmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
  2. Tipton v. Standard Installment Finance CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966
  3. Joplin v. ElySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
  4. L. S. Cogswell Lbr. Co. v. FoltzSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API