Arnold v. Idiker

3 Citing cases

  1. Tiger v. Coker

    68 P.2d 509 (Okla. 1937)   Cited 5 times

    This court held in Fermison v. Union National Bank. 23 Okla. 37, 99 P. 641, and also in Re First State Bank of Oklahoma City, 68 Okla. 88, 171 P. 864, that the primary object of a brief is to convey information to the court, and it must clearly state the manner in which the controverted points arise, the facts which constitute the ground work of the legal dispute and the governing propositions of law. This holding has been strictly adhered to. Brunson v. Emerson, 34 Okla. 211, 124 P. 979; Hoover v. State, 73 Okla. 112, 175 P. 117; Stone v. Easter, 93 Okla. 68, 219 P. 653; Shaw v. Stevenson, 119 Okla. 182, 249 P. 306; Arnold v. Idiker, 29 Okla. 687, 119 P. 125; Davis v. Williams, 32 Okla. 27, 121 P. 637; Eby v. Krause, 35 Okla. 689, 130 P. 1100; Dickson v. Low, 38 Okla. 216, 132 P. 354; Welch v. Cotton, 67 Okla. 324, 170 P. 1174, and upon the authority of these cases defendant in error now moves the court to either affirm the judgment of the trial court or to dismiss the appeal."

  2. Houghton v. Grier

    122 P. 545 (Okla. 1912)

    Counsel for defendant in error complains of this defect in the brief of plaintiff in error, and by virtue of said rule 25, supra, have filed a counter abstract presenting their theory of the evidence complained of, and this counter abstract has not been replied to by plaintiff in error. In Arnold v. Idiker, 29 Okla. 687, 119 P. 125, Mr. Justice Williams, in discussing this proposition, says: "Wherever the plaintiff in error fails to comply with the foregoing rule, and the defendant in error makes a counter abstract which is not replied to by plaintiff in error, and under such abstract as made by the defendant in error no prejudicial error is shown, the presumption being in favor of the trial court, the same will be affirmed."

  3. Davis v. Williams

    121 P. 637 (Okla. 1912)   Cited 3 times

    "The brief of plaintiff in error shall contain an abstract or abridgment of the transcript setting forth the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents upon which he relies, together with such other statements from the record as are necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented to this court for decision, so that no examination of the record itself need be made in this court," etc. In Arnold v. Idiker, 29 Okla. 687, 119 P. 125, Mr. Justice Williams, in speaking of the failure of counsel to properly observe the rules of this court in briefing their cases, says: "The brief of the plaintiff in error wholly fails to comply with this rule (Rule 25, 20 Okla. xii [95 Pac. viii]).