TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sandoma Petroleum Co. v. Tow

SANDOMA PETROLEUM CO. Et Al. v. TOW Et Al.

Sandoma Petroleum Co. v. Tow, 1923 OK 565, 217 P. 412
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 24, 1923
Docket
No. 14367
Judges
Cochran, Johnson, Kane, Kenna-Mer, Nicholson, Harrison
Citations
217 P. 4121923 OK 56590 Okla. 2761923 Okla. LEXIS 1179

Opinion of the Court — Cochran

COCHRAN, J.

This is an action to review an award of the State Industrial Commission. The award 'was made by the Industrial Commission on March 29, 1923, and motion for a new trial was filed April 2, 1923, and overruled by the commission April 27, 1923. The petition for review was filed in this court on May 24, 1923. Section 7207, Comp. Stat. 1921, provides the method of reviewing awards of the Industrial Commission, and is as folows:

“The award or decision of the commission shall be final and conclusive upon all questions within its jurisdiction between the parties, unless within 30 days after a copy of such award or decision has been sent by said commission to the parties affected, an action is commenced in the Supreme Court of the state to review such award or decision. Said Supfeme Court shall have original jurisdiction of such action, and is authorized to prescribe rules for the commencement and trial of same. Such action shall be commenced by filing with the clerk of the Supreme Court a certified copy of the award or decision of the commission attached tó the petition by the complainant, wherein the complainant or petitioner shall make his assignments or specifications as to wherein said award is erroneous and illegal. * * *”

No motion for new trial is necessary or authorized under this statute and the 30-day'period within which to file petition for review begins to run from the date of the award, and the filing of the motion for new trial does not extend the time within which to commence proceedings for review. The petition not having been filed in this court wiTiin thirty days from the date of the award, the petition for review is dismissed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and KANE. KENNA-MER, NICHOLSON, and HARRISON, ,JJ„ concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1926: 11927: 21928: 11929: 11931: 11933: 11967: 11987: 119262026peak 1927 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. BF Goodrich Company v. State Industrial Court429 P.2d 787 (Okla. 1967)
  2. Oxford v. Texas Co.1928 OK 59, 263 P. 451
  3. Union Indemnity Co. v. Saling1933 OK 481, 26 P.2d 217
  4. Snyder v. Smith Welding & Fabrication746 P.2d 168 (Okla. 1987)
  5. Knowles v. Whitehead Oil Co.1926 OK 569, 247 P. 653
  6. Oklahoma Pipe Line Co. v. State Industrial Com.1931 OK 229, 299 P. 180

Most recent

  1. Snyder v. Smith Welding & Fabrication746 P.2d 168 (Okla. 1987)
  2. BF Goodrich Company v. State Industrial Court429 P.2d 787 (Okla. 1967)
  3. Union Indemnity Co. v. Saling1933 OK 481, 26 P.2d 217
  4. Oklahoma Pipe Line Co. v. State Industrial Com.1931 OK 229, 299 P. 180
  5. Graver Corporation v. Cullum1929 OK 66, 277 P. 265
  6. Oxford v. Texas Co.1928 OK 59, 263 P. 451

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list