Opinion

Bailess v. Paukune

  • 208 Okla. 146
  • 254 P.2d 349
  • 1953 OK 56
  • 1953 Okla. LEXIS 735
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Feb 24, 1953
Status
Published
Author
Neal
On the bench
Arnold, Blackbird, Corn, Davison, Halley, Johnson, Neal, Welch, Williams
Cited by
2 cases

The opinion

O’NEAL, Justice

(dissenting).

It is my opinion, where the Supreme Court of the United States reverses a State Court, that upon receipt of its mandate it becomes the duty of the State Court to issue its mandate to the trial court, to which should he attached a copy of the- high court’s opinion, and directing the trial court to proceed in conformity with the said opinion. ' '

I fully agree that on questions of Federal Law, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are binding upon this court; but I do not ágree that the reversal of a State Court’s decision, such as is involved in this case, requires it to promulgate another opinion in the case. It is true there may be cases where another opinion of the State Court would be necessary and proper, but this is not. that type of case. The opinion of the high court speaks for itself and does not require an opinion by this court to vitalize or give it force of law in this state.

I am authorized to say that DAVISON, J., concurs with the above views.

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.