Opinion

State Ex Rel. Roth v. Waterfield

  • 167 Okla. 209
  • 29 P.2d 24
  • 1933 OK 546
  • 1933 Okla. LEXIS 840
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Oct 17, 1933
Status
Published
Author
Swindall
On the bench
AIc-XEILL, Andrews, Bayless, Busby, Cullison, McNEILL, Osborn, Riley, Swindall, Welch, Wind
Cited by
33 cases

The opinion

SWINDALL, J.

I concur in the rule of law announced in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 of the syllabus, and in that portion of the majority opinion holding sections 2, 3 and 4 of said act constitutional, and the holding that said cause should be reversed, and dissent from the construction placed on sections 2 and 3, and from the other portions of the majority opinion and concur in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice OSBORN relative to the construction of the act under consideration.

AIc-XEILL, J., concurs in the views of Justice SWINDALL.

WELCH, J., concurs in the law stated in the syllabus and in the conclusion.

OSBORN, J., dissents.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.