Legal Opinion

Fore v. Fore

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 9, 1950No. 33476PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff in error has appealed from a judgment entered against him in the trial court and on February 24, 1948, he filed his brief. The authorities therein cited reasonably sustain the allegations of error. The defendant in error has filed no brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. Under such circumstances as stated in Gooldy v. Hines, 186 Okla. 583, 99 P. 2d 498, it is not the duty of this court to search the record for some theory upon which to sustain the action of the trial court, but the cause will be reversed and remanded, with directions.

The cause is reversed and remanded,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gooldy v. HinesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Viersen v. StanfillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
  2. City of Atoka v. McNeilSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
  3. Jenkins v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API