joint assignment error (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

joint assignment error in Oklahoma

20 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1925–1997 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Rein v. Pattongreen
okla · 1953 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997See in this connection, Rein v. Patton, 208 Okl. 442 , 257 P.2d 280, 283 (1953) (a joint petition in error must be good as to all petitioners or it will be unavailable to any of them); Taxicab Drivers’ Local Union No. 889 v. Cook, Okl., 327 P.2d 660, 663-64 (1958) (a joint assignment of error must be good as to all joining therein or it will be good as to none); Carlton v. State Farm Mut.

1997See in this connection, Rein v. Patton, 208 Okl. 442 , 257 P.2d 280, 283 (1953) (a joint petition in error must be good as to all petitioners or it will be unavailable to any of them); Taxicab Drivers’ Local Union No. 889 v. Cook, Okl., 327 P.2d 660, 663-64 (1958) (a joint assignment of error must be good as to all joining therein or it will be good as to none); Carlton v. State Farm Mut.

11
Taxicab Drivers' Local Union No. 889 v. Cookgreen
okla · 1958 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997See in this connection, Rein v. Patton, 208 Okl. 442 , 257 P.2d 280, 283 (1953) (a joint petition in error must be good as to all petitioners or it will be unavailable to any of them); Taxicab Drivers’ Local Union No. 889 v. Cook, Okl., 327 P.2d 660, 663-64 (1958) (a joint assignment of error must be good as to all joining therein or it will be good as to none); Carlton v. State Farm Mut.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

CaseCitedYears
Niles v. Citizens Nat. Bank of El Reno neutral
okla · 1925
2 sentences

1936Beck, and, therefore, as we have pointed out in Haley v. Wyte, 169 Okla. 406 , 38 P. (2d) 910 : “A joint assignment of error must affect all jointly and not severally as to all who join in it, or it will be good as to none.” See, also, Niles v. Citizens’ National Bank of El Reno, 110 Okla. 146 , 236 P. 414 : Pharoah v. Beugler, 172 Okla. 633 , 45 P. (2d) 1098 ; Universal Life Ins.

1936Beck, and, therefore, as we have pointed out in Haley v. Wyte, 169 Okla. 406 , 38 P. (2d) 910 : “A joint assignment of error must affect all jointly and not severally as to all who join in it, or it will be good as to none.” See, also, Niles v. Citizens’ National Bank of El Reno, 110 Okla. 146 , 236 P. 414 : Pharoah v. Beugler, 172 Okla. 633 , 45 P. (2d) 1098 ; Universal Life Ins.

61925–1936
Haley v. Wyte green
okla · 1934
2 sentences

1945In Haley v. Wyte, 169 Okla. 406 , 38 P. 2d 910 , we held that a joint assignment of error must affect all jointly and not severally as to all who join in it, or it will be good as to none.

1945In Haley v. Wyte, 169 Okla. 406 , 38 P. 2d 910 , we held that a joint assignment of error must affect all jointly and not severally as to all who join in it, or it will be good as to none.

51936–1945
Pharoah v. Beugler neutral
okla · 1935
2 sentences

1936Beck, and, therefore, as we have pointed out in Haley v. Wyte, 169 Okla. 406 , 38 P. (2d) 910 : “A joint assignment of error must affect all jointly and not severally as to all who join in it, or it will be good as to none.” See, also, Niles v. Citizens’ National Bank of El Reno, 110 Okla. 146 , 236 P. 414 : Pharoah v. Beugler, 172 Okla. 633 , 45 P. (2d) 1098 ; Universal Life Ins.

1936Beck, and, therefore, as we have pointed out in Haley v. Wyte, 169 Okla. 406 , 38 P. (2d) 910 : “A joint assignment of error must affect all jointly and not severally as to all who join in it, or it will be good as to none.” See, also, Niles v. Citizens’ National Bank of El Reno, 110 Okla. 146 , 236 P. 414 : Pharoah v. Beugler, 172 Okla. 633 , 45 P. (2d) 1098 ; Universal Life Ins.

21936–1953
Bilby v. Gibson green
okla · 1928
2 sentences

1936In Bilby v. Gibson, 133 Okla. 196 , 271 P. 1026 , it is held; *156 “A joint assignment of error must be good as to all wlio join in it, or it will be good as to none.” In the opinion it is also said: “ ‘Where a joint motion for new trial is filed and a joint assignment of error is relied on, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment as to all of the defendants, if not good as to one, no inquiry-will be made as to the other, and the error assigned is of no avail.’ W.

1936In Bilby v. Gibson, 133 Okla. 196 , 271 P. 1026 , it is held; *156 “A joint assignment of error must be good as to all wlio join in it, or it will be good as to none.” In the opinion it is also said: “ ‘Where a joint motion for new trial is filed and a joint assignment of error is relied on, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment as to all of the defendants, if not good as to one, no inquiry-will be made as to the other, and the error assigned is of no avail.’ W.

21936–1936
Kingkade v. Plummer green
okla · 1925
2 sentences

1933We have heretofore stated that the evidence introduced by the husband and wife presented no defense whatever on behalf of the husband, and another reason why this judgment of the trial court should be sustained is the rule of this court, as laid down in Kingkade v. Plummer, 111 Okla. 197 , 239 P. 628 , and other cases, to wit: “A joint assignment of error must be good as to all who join in it or it will be good as to none.” Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1933We have heretofore stated that the evidence introduced by the husband and wife presented no defense whatever on behalf of the husband, and another reason why this judgment of the trial court should be sustained is the rule of this court, as laid down in Kingkade v. Plummer, 111 Okla. 197 , 239 P. 628 , and other cases, to wit: “A joint assignment of error must be good as to all who join in it or it will be good as to none.” Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

21929–1933
Beck v. Day green
okla · 1936
2 sentences

1957In Beck v. Day, 178 Okl. 310 , 62 P.2d 1014 , we held that a joint assignment of error must affect all jointly and not severally as to all who join in it, or it will be good as to none.

1957In Beck v. Day, 178 Okl. 310 , 62 P.2d 1014 , we held that a joint assignment of error must affect all jointly and not severally as to all who join in it, or it will be good as to none.

11957–1957
State Finance Service v. Mullins neutral
okla · 1944
2 sentences

1953Pharoah v. Beugler, 172 Okl. 633 , 45 P.2d 1098 ; State Finance Service v. Mullins, 193 Okl. 688 , 147 P.2d 159 .

1953Pharoah v. Beugler, 172 Okl. 633 , 45 P.2d 1098 ; State Finance Service v. Mullins, 193 Okl. 688 , 147 P.2d 159 .

11953–1953
Render v. Dodson neutral
okla · 1936
2 sentences

1945Render v. Dodson, 179 Okla. 352 , 66 P. 2d 14 ; Hudson v. Gilbert, 182 Okla. 43 , 75 P. 2d 1139 .

1945Render v. Dodson, 179 Okla. 352 , 66 P. 2d 14 ; Hudson v. Gilbert, 182 Okla. 43 , 75 P. 2d 1139 .

11945–1945
Hudson v. Gilbert neutral
okla · 1938
2 sentences

1945Render v. Dodson, 179 Okla. 352 , 66 P. 2d 14 ; Hudson v. Gilbert, 182 Okla. 43 , 75 P. 2d 1139 .

1945Render v. Dodson, 179 Okla. 352 , 66 P. 2d 14 ; Hudson v. Gilbert, 182 Okla. 43 , 75 P. 2d 1139 .

11945–1945
Jones v. Webb neutral
okla · 1936
2 sentences

1940In Jones v. Webb, 180 Okla. 5 , 67 P. 2d 800 , the court said: “A joint assignment of error must affect all jointly and not severally as to ah who join in it or it will be good as to none.” This assignment of error is good only as to Elsie Horn and could not be presented in a joint petition in error.

1940In Jones v. Webb, 180 Okla. 5 , 67 P. 2d 800 , the court said: “A joint assignment of error must affect all jointly and not severally as to ah who join in it or it will be good as to none.” This assignment of error is good only as to Elsie Horn and could not be presented in a joint petition in error.

11940–1940
W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Riggs green
okla · 1927
2 sentences

1939Rawleigh Co. v. Riggs et al., 123 Okla. 42 , 252 P. 428 , holding that where a joint motion for new trial and a joint assignment of error are relied upon, they must be good as to both defendants or they are good as to none.

1939Rawleigh Co. v. Riggs et al., 123 Okla. 42 , 252 P. 428 , holding that where a joint motion for new trial and a joint assignment of error are relied upon, they must be good as to both defendants or they are good as to none.

11939–1939
Universal Life Insurance v. Berry neutral
okla · 1936
1 sentence

1936Co. v. Berry, 173 Okla. 92 , 57 P. (2d) 879 .

11936–1936
Temple v. Dugger green
okla · 1933
2 sentences

1934Temple et al. v. Dugger, 164 Okla. 84 , 21 P. (2d) 482 .

1934Temple et al. v. Dugger, 164 Okla. 84 , 21 P. (2d) 482 .

11934–1934
McGuire v. State Bank of Tremonton neutral
utah · 1917
1 sentence

1934Neither can parties who jointly assign error take advantage of errors which affect them severally, and not jointly.” As stated in the case of McGuire v. State Bank (Utah) 164 P. 494 , quoting from Mr. Elliott in his work on Appellate Procedure: “Where several parties unite in one assignment of errors they will encounter defeat unless the assignment is good as to all.

11934–1934

Where else courts name it

IN 24 (1882–1939) OK 20 (1925–1997) AL 5 (1909–1926) NE 3 (1897–1914) WY 3 (1907–1932)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check