Grooms v. Johnson

12 Citing cases

  1. Commercial Bank Trust v. District Court

    605 P.2d 1323 (Okla. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    Tulsa City Lines v. Mains, 107 F.2d 377 (10th Cir. 1940).Grooms v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98, 99 (1943). In Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Forsythe and Templar, 56 Okla. 26, 155 P. 851, 852 (1916) the Court cited Jones' Commentaries on Evidence, Vol. 2, p. 599 as authority for the rule as follows:

  2. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Daniel

    1965 OK 7 (Okla. 1965)   Cited 19 times

    The trial court overruled plaintiff's motion and admonished the jury to disregard any comment in the argument concerning an offer. In support of its contention, plaintiff cites 12 O.S.Supp. 1963 § 651[ 12-651] subd. 4; 53 Am.Jur., Trial § 482; Grooms et al. v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98; Plummer v. Fogley, Okla., 363 P.2d 238, 95 A.L.R.2d 251; Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Forsythe Templar et al., 56 Okla. 26, 155 P. 851; Kunkel v. Rattray, 110 Okla. 289, 231 P. 541. We agree that the above mentioned portion of the closing argument made by defendants' counsel to the jury was improper.

  3. Stillwater Milling Company v. Morehouse

    381 P.2d 1006 (Okla. 1963)   Cited 1 times

    Jenkins v. Davis, 111 Okla. 191, 239 P. 135. See also Grooms v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98, and Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. State ex rel. Department of Highways, 205 Okla. 325, 237 P.2d 878. In the case of State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Weaver, Okla., 297 P.2d 549, this court quoted with approval from the Oklahoma Ry. case, supra, wherein language in the body of the opinion in the Jenkins case, supra, was cited as follows:

  4. Witte v. Fullerton

    1962 OK 211 (Okla. 1962)   Cited 7 times
    In Witte v. Fullerton, 1962 OK 211, ¶ 18, 376 P.2d 244, the Court determined that a trial court in the exercise of its discretion in personal injury actions upon a timely request could order a plaintiff to submit to a physical examination and expressly overruled City of Kingfisher v. Altizer, supra and any other prior decisions to the contrary.

    The action of the court in striking the evidence and instructing the jury not to consider it was sufficient to remove any prejudice which defendants might otherwise have suffered by the introduction of this evidence. Fleming v. Pattillo, 196 Okla. 557, 167 P.2d 40; Grooms v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98."

  5. City of Oklahoma City v. Garnett

    296 P.2d 766 (Okla. 1956)   Cited 8 times
    Holding it was not error for the court to order a supplemental commissioners' report

    It is apparent that the testimony of this witness did not, in any wise, influence the jury and did not result in a miscarriage of justice, or constitute a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right so as to constitute reversible error. 22 O.S. 1951 § 1068[ 22-1068]; 12 O.S. 1951 §§ 78[ 12-78] [ 12-78], 636; Grooms v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98; Byrd v. McKoy, 183 Okla. 209, 81 P.2d 315; Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation v. Fisher, 183 Okla. 638, 84 P.2d 22. In Kelly v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Okla., 269 P.2d 359, 366, it is said:

  6. Andrews v. Moery

    205 Okla. 635 (Okla. 1952)   Cited 14 times
    In Andrews v. Moery, 205 Okla. 635, 240 P.2d 447, we held that opinion evidence of an expert as to the speed of a truck involved in an accident based upon the length of skid marks was admissible.

    The action of the court in striking the evidence and instructing the jury not to consider it was sufficient to remove any prejudice which defendants might otherwise have suffered by the introduction of this evidence. Fleming et al. v. Pattillo, 196 Okla. 557, 167 P.2d 40; Grooms et al. v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98. Objections were made by defendants as to other evidence admitted.

  7. Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. State ex rel

    237 P.2d 878 (Okla. 1951)   Cited 11 times
    In Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. State ex rel. Department of Highways, 205 Okla. 325, 237 P.2d 878, we held that where one invites or participates in the injection of incompetent evidence, he will not be heard to complain of such error.

    It is fundamental that a party cannot complain of errors that he invited and participated in. In Grooms v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98, the rule is announced in the syllabus as follows: "A judgment will not be reversed because of the refusal of the trial court to declare a mistrial, on account of misconduct of counsel in propounding improper questions to a witness concerning an offer of compromise, unless it appears that substantial prejudice resulted therefrom and that the jury was influenced thereby to the material detriment of the complaining party."

  8. Danner v. Chandler

    205 Okla. 185 (Okla. 1951)   Cited 7 times

    The court ruled correctly in denying defendants' motion for a declaration of mistrial. Fleming v. Pattillo, 196 Okla. 557, 167 P.2d 40; Grooms v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98. Defendants finally contend that the trial court committed error in its instruction No. 14. The court, in this instruction, among other things, charged the jury in fixing compensation to plaintiff for injury to his hand, it might take into consideration pain and suffering which he had already endured and which he would be likely to endure in the future.

  9. Price v. Rogers

    209 P.2d 683 (Okla. 1949)   Cited 8 times

    The intervener being present, the mandatory provision of section 582, supra, was not violated. Although the action of the court may be considered to have been irregular, the lawyer of the defendant not having been notified and also given the opportunity to be present with his client at the time the additional and favorable instruction was given, the judgment should not be set aside because the action of the court in this respect was harmless. See 22 O. S. 1941 § 1068; Lookabaugh v. Bowmaker, 21 Okla. 489, 96 P. 651; Smittle v. Yadon Inv. Co., 154 Okla. 37, 6 P.2d 818; Potter v. Bond, 98 Okla. 135, 224 P. 537; Smith v. Pulaski Oil Co., 88 Okla. 47, 211 P. 1047; Foreman v. Henry, 87 Okla. 272, 210 P. 1026; Creek Coal Mining Co. v. Paprotta, 73 Okla. 119, 175 P. 235; Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 25 Okla. 760, 107 P. 662; Tischer v. Arrington, 193 Okla. 584, 146 P.2d 121; 39 Am. Jur. § 69, p. 84; 12 O. S. 1941 § 78; Grooms v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98; Wilson v. Holmes, 185 Okla. 239, 91 P.2d 85; and Mannford State Bank v. Arnold, 105 Okla. 131, 221 P. 76. Affirmed.

  10. Fleming v. Pattillo

    167 P.2d 40 (Okla. 1946)   Cited 5 times

    The ruling of the trial court and the admonition given by the court to the jury was sufficient to cure any error that might otherwise have resulted from such voluntary statements of the witness. Wray v. Ferris, 187 Okla. 428, 103 P.2d 942; Grooms et al. v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98. The judgment is affirmed.