Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Kimpel

10 Citing cases

  1. Kriewitz v. Taylor

    45 P.2d 527 (Okla. 1935)   Cited 4 times

    In the case of an omission or error in the record, the power exists in the court below to amend such record, so that it may conform to the actual facts and truth of the case. Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Kimpel, 39 Okla. 339, 135 P. 6. 2.

  2. Metcalf v. Burke

    No. 18-CV-3260 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 2024)

    Specifically, the Defendants point out the lack of evidence that Defendants Cox and Loundsberry knew an assault was occurring and Plaintiff's speculation about what the Defendants should, or could, have heard if they were conducting rounds effectively. (d/e 135 p. 6).

  3. CIC Servs. v. Internal Revenue Serv.

    3:17-CV-110-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 12, 2023)

    The IRS asserts that on reconsideration, the Chief District Judge found that it was correct that Plaintiff could not seek relief on behalf of non-parties. Specifically, the IRS prevailed on its request that the Court reconsider its decision to “order[] the IRS to return the documents and information it collected pursuant to the Notice to nonparty taxpayers and material advisors” [Doc. 135 p. 6].

  4. Norton v. United States

    No. 2:15-CR-24-RLJ-MCLC-4 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 1, 2016)

    -------- To the extent that Petitioner complains that she received criminal history points for her prior felony drug conviction [Doc. 135 p. 6], the Johnson decision is inapposite. Her Tennessee conviction for delivery of cocaine resulted in three criminal history points because it constituted a prior "sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month" under Section 4A1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, not because it was a "crime of violence" under the ACCA residual clause or a similarly-worded provision.

  5. In re Kinderknecht

    No. 17-12530-13 (Bankr. D. Kan. Jan. 18, 2023)   Cited 1 times
    Excluding evidence of undisclosed fees because the court was not persuaded that the mortgagee's violation was harmless or justified

    Doc. 135 p. 6 ¶ 20. Second, Golden Belt Bank argues it was exempt from disclosing escrow account payment changes because of a subsection of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), namely 12 C.F.R. § 1024.17(i)(2).

  6. McCullough v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

    1981 OK 38 (Okla. 1981)   Cited 43 times
    In McCullough v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 1981 OK 38, 626 P.2d 1332, 1334–1335, we explained that while this Court makes the ultimate determination with respect to the state and contents of an appellate record, it may direct the trial judge to make findings of fact related to notice of an appealable event provided to an appellant.

    Werfelman v. Miller, 180 Okla. 267, 68 P.2d 819, 820 (1937). See also, Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Kimpel, 39 Okla. 339, 135 P. 6 (1913); Bettis v. Cargile, 23 Okla. 301, 100 P. 436 (1909). There can be no doubt from an examination of the record and exhibits that the trial judge entered his judgment in this case on February 20, 1979.

  7. Werfelman v. Miller

    68 P.2d 819 (Okla. 1937)   Cited 15 times

    This court has full power to correct by any method it sees fit the record or case-made filed in this court. Section 535, O. S. 1931. The trial judge acts as special master for this court for the correction of the record filed in this court. If the correction of the record of the trial court is by nunc pro tunc order to correct a matter of record in the trial court only, or not of record in the trial court, the trial judge has exclusive jurisdiction to make that correction. Bettis v. Cargile, 23 Okla. 301, 100 P. 436; Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Kimpel, 39 Okla. 339, 135 P. 6. The proper way to correct the record when the case has been appealed to this court is to apply to the appellate court to withdraw the case-made, and when due notice is given under the order of this court, proceed to correct the record. Embry v. Villines, 175 Okla. 552, 53 P.2d 277. If the trial court, acting as a trial court, deems it necessary to proceed to correct its record by nunc pro tunc order, it has full power under the above authorities to proceed to do so.

  8. Harjo v. Johnston

    19 P.2d 961 (Okla. 1933)   Cited 6 times

    The case-made, or the record of the district court, cannot be impeached, changed, altered, or contradicted by ex parte affidavits of the court clerk and his deputy. Perry v. Myers, 127 Okla. 27, 259 P. 556; Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Kimpel, 39 Okla. 339, 135 P. 6. Even conceding against the face of the record that the proceedings were had on April 1, 1931, in the overruling of the motion for new trial as contended by plaintiff in error, still, this would not bring plaintiff in error within the time within which to serve his case-made. The case-made was served on June 5, 1931. Two extensions of time were granted. If the order was made on April 1, 1961, as contended aforesaid, instead of April 16, 1931, the first 30 days' extension of time within which to serve said case-made would commence to run on April 1, 1931, and expire on May 1, 1931.

  9. Perry v. Myers

    259 P. 556 (Okla. 1927)   Cited 9 times

    In case of an omission or error in the record, the power exists in the court below to amend such record, so that it may conform to the actual facts and truth in the case. Oklahoma Fire Insurance Co. v. Kimpel, 39 Okla. 399, 135 P. 6. The case-made cannot be impeached, changed, altered, or varied on appeal by an ex parte and unauthorized certificate of the trial judge or of the clerk, nor by affidavits or other evidence or matters dehors the record. 4 C. J. 512; Thompson v. Cade, 14 Okla. 337, 79 P. 96; Mason v. Harlow (Kan.) 142 P. 243; General Electric Co. v. Sapulpa I. Ry. Co., 49 Okla. 376, 153 P. 189.

  10. GENERAL ELECTRIC v. SAPULPA I. RY

    153 P. 189 (Okla. 1915)   Cited 2 times

    In the case of an omission or error in the record, the power exists in the court below to amend such record, so that it may conform to the actual facts and truth of the case. Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Kimpel, 39 Okla. 339, 135 P. 6. A mere inference arising from the record that there might have been other evidence introduced at the trial than that produced in the case-made will not outweigh the positive statements of the trial judge that it is all of the evidence in the case. Gardner v. Kime, 20 Okla. 784, 95 P. 242.