Opinion

Arthur v. Arthur

  • 354 P.2d 199
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Aug 2, 1960
Status
Published
Author
Halley
On the bench
Davison, Williams, Halley, Johnson, Jackson, Irwin, Welch, Blackbird
Cited by
8 cases

whether balance due not at issue

How later courts described this case

  • whether balance due not at issue

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HALLEY, Justice

(dissenting).

■ I dissent in this case because I think that the majority opinion misconstrues the effect of the dismissals filed in this Court. There was nothing in those dismissals which in 'any way affected the right of Charles S. Arthur to prosecute his appeal in this case. It was not the intention of this Court to in any way curtail his rights on the appeal.

Without going into too great detail I am of the opinion that the majority has reached a very inequitable result in its decision. I dissent.

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.

Arthur v. Arthur · 354 P.2d 199 | Frix