Legal Opinion
Tulsa City Lines, Inc. v. Howell
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 31, 1950No. 33679PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries. The verdict of the jury signed by only nine of the twelve juiors was rendered for defendants. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was sustained, and defendants appeal.
The parties herein will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
The motion filed by plaintiff asking for a new trial set up the following grounds: (1) that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) that the verdict is contrary to the court’s instructions; (3) error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by plaintiff; (4) error of the court in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Shreve v. CornellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
- Russell v. MargoSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Bailey v. SissonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Nichols Transfer & Storage Co. v. LumpkinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Kurn v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
3Cited by4 opinions
- Park v. Security Bank and Trust CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973
- Cosmo Construction Company v. LodenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1960
- Fisher v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
- Simmons v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1956