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

COLEMAN v. BROWNING

DIFFENDAFFER, C.

The facts and law applicable thereto in this cause being substantially the same as in cause No. 17625, Langley v. Hamilton, 127 Okla. 35, 259 P. 575, wherein an opinion has this day been rendered, the opinion and syllabus therein rendered are adopted as the syllabus and opinion in this case, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

TEEHEE, HERR, HALL, and REID, Commissioners, concur.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

COLEMAN v. BROWNING
(Sep 20, 1927)