Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

FINCH et al. v. SMITH.

(Syllabus.)

Appeal and Error — Dismissal Upon Failure to Respond to Motion to Dismiss Upon Jurisdictional Grounds.

Where the defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss upon jurisdictional grounds, and this court has ordered the plaintiff in error to respond thereto and no response has been filed, it is not the duty of this court to inquire further into the jurisdiction where the authorities cited by the movant reasonably sustain the lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM.

This cause arises upon a motion to dismiss for the reason that in Finch v. Smith, 177 Okla. 307, 58 P.2d 850, opinion rendered April 7, 1936, between the same parties this court decided all of the matters now before this court in this cause. On June 30, 1936, this court called for a response from plaintiff in error and none has been filed. In French v. Bragg, No. 26885, opinion filed March 17, 1936, 177 Okla. 43, 55 P.2d 953, we said:

"Where the defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss upon jurisdictional grounds, and this court has ordered the plaintiff in error to respond thereto and no response has been filed, it is not the duty of this court to inquire further into the jurisdiction where the authorities cited by the movant reasonably sustain the lack of jurisdiction."

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, BUSBY, PHELPS, and GIBSON, JJ., concur. WELCH and CORN, JJ., absent.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FINCH v. SMITH
(Dec 22, 1936)