State v. Sisler

STATE v. SISLER Et Al.

State v. Sisler, 1941 OK CR 21, 110 P.2d 321

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided: February 6, 1941
Docket: No. A-9802.
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Citations: 110 P.2d 3211941 OK CR 2171 Okla. Crim. 2111941 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 21

Cited by 4

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

*212 PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Dr. Wade Sisler and Jessie H. Kirk, were charged by information in the court of common pleas of Tulsa county with “willfully and knowingly” requiring and permitting one “Thelma Hensley, a female person,” to- work more than nine hours in one day in defendant’s hospital. The court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the information, and the state appeals.

The appeal in this case was by the state upon a reserved question of law, as provided by Oklahoma Statutes 1931, section 3191, 22 Okla. St. Ann. § 1053. The appeal was filed in this court on the 12th day of January, 1940. It appears from the docket of this court that this case has been set for oral argument at several different sessions, and that counsel for the state have not appeared for oral argument and have filed no brief in support of the contention of the state.

Under the decisions of this court, where no brief is filed and no appearance made when the case is called for submission, and an examination of the record shows no merit in the errors assigned, the judgment will be affirmed. Henley v. State, 66 Okla. Cr. 264 , 91 P. 2d 685 ; Walker v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 302 , 64 P. 2d 935 ; Hickman v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 417 , 65 P. 2d 211 ; Noble v. State, 39 Okla. Cr. 19 , 262 P. 707 ; Hudson v. State, 28 Okla. Cr. 369 , 230 P. 940 ; Shelton v. State, 41 Okla. Cr. 220 , 271 P. 262 ; Justice v. State, 41 Okla. Cr. 136 , 271 P. 860 ; Robinson v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 443 , 65 P. 2d 212 .

We have carefully examined the record and find no fundamental error, and that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the information. Ex parte Carson, 33 Okla. Cr. 198 , 243 P. 260 .

The judgment of the court of common pleas of Tulsa county is therefore affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts4

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Robinson1975 OK CR 237, 544 P.2d 545
Yount v. State1942 OK CR 83, 126 P.2d 549
State v. Humphrey1947 OK CR 129, 186 P.2d 664
State v. Morgan1947 OK CR 139, 187 P.2d 273

Most recent

State v. Robinson1975 OK CR 237, 544 P.2d 545
State v. Morgan1947 OK CR 139, 187 P.2d 273
State v. Humphrey1947 OK CR 129, 186 P.2d 664
Yount v. State1942 OK CR 83, 126 P.2d 549

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 9

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Ex Parte Carson, 1926 OK CR 39, 243 P. 260	13
	Walker v. State, 1937 OK CR 14, 64 P.2d 935	9
	Robinson v. State, 65 P.2d 212 (Okla. Crim. App. 1937)	6
	Noble v. State, 1928 OK CR 17, 262 P. 707	2
	Hudson v. State, 1924 OK CR 308, 230 P. 940	2
	Shelton v. State, 1928 OK CR 304, 271 P. 262	2
	Hickman v. State, 1937 OK CR 26, 65 P.2d 211	2
	Justice v. State, 1928 OK CR 313, 271 P. 860	2
	Henley v. State, 1939 OK CR 59, 91 P.2d 685	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list