Abbott v. Rodgers
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
*190 WILLIAMS), J.
Counsel for defendant in error moves to dismiss this proceeding in error for the reason that neither the case-made attached to the petition in error nor a copy thereof was filed with the papers in the case below. The said motion was filed in this court on November 13, 1912, showing service on attorneys for the plaintiff in error on the 11th day of November, 1912. No response has been made to said motion.
Under the authority of St. Louis, I. M. & So. Ry. Co. v. Burrow, 33 Okla. 701 , 127 Pac. 478 , the motion must be sustained.
See, also, Marple v. Farmers’ & Merchants’ Nat.
Bank, 28 Okla. 810 , 115 Pac. 1124 ;
Oligschalager v. Grell, 13 Okla. 632 , 75 Pac. 1131 .
The motion to dismiss this proceeding in error must therefore be sustained.
All the Justices concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.