reasoning rule in Oklahoma

1997Cartwright v. State, 778 P.2d 479 (Okl.Cr.1989).

1993Id. 1 While recognizing that criminal trial procedure is not binding on this Court, we have cited Scrivener with approval, noting that “both the reasoning and the rule based thereon [were] persuasive.” Burke, 313 P.2d at 1093-94 .

1993Id. [1] While recognizing that criminal trial procedure is not binding on this Court, we have cited Scrivener with approval, noting that "both the reasoning and the rule based thereon [were] persuasive." Burke, 313 P.2d at 1093-94 .

1993Id. 1 While recognizing that criminal trial procedure is not binding on this Court, we have cited Scrivener with approval, noting that “both the reasoning and the rule based thereon [were] persuasive.” Burke, 313 P.2d at 1093-94 .

1993Id. [1] While recognizing that criminal trial procedure is not binding on this Court, we have cited Scrivener with approval, noting that "both the reasoning and the rule based thereon [were] persuasive." Burke, 313 P.2d at 1093-94 .

1971On advice of counsel, obtained by the insurance carrier for Merlino, he elected to await the running of the statute of limitations before notifying the plaintiff of the mistake made in the description of the parties.” In discussing Adams v. Beland Realty Corp., 187 F.Supp. 680 (E.D.N.Y.1960) where mandamus to compel vacation of a substitution order denied in Hirsch v. Bruchhausen, 284 F.2d 783 (2nd Cir. 1960), the Washington court said, “We believe, however, the reasoning for the exception in the cited case, * * * to be sound, especially as it applies to the facts of. the instant case.

1971On advice of counsel, obtained by the insurance carrier for Merlino, he elected to await the running of the statute of limitations before notifying the plaintiff of the mistake made in the description of the parties.” In discussing Adams v. Beland Realty Corp., 187 F.Supp. 680 (E.D.N.Y.1960) where mandamus to compel vacation of a substitution order denied in Hirsch v. Bruchhausen, 284 F.2d 783 (2nd Cir. 1960), the Washington court said, “We believe, however, the reasoning for the exception in the cited case, * * * to be sound, especially as it applies to the facts of. the instant case.

1970Shinn v. City of Oklahoma, 184 Okl. 236 , 87 P.2d 136 ; Moore v. Oklahoma City, 161 Okl. 205 , 17 P.2d 953 .

1970Shinn v. City of Oklahoma, 184 Okl. 236 , 87 P.2d 136 ; Moore v. Oklahoma City, 161 Okl. 205 , 17 P.2d 953 .

1970Shinn v. City of Oklahoma, 184 Okl. 236 , 87 P.2d 136 ; Moore v. Oklahoma City, 161 Okl. 205 , 17 P.2d 953 .

1970Shinn v. City of Oklahoma, 184 Okl. 236 , 87 P.2d 136 ; Moore v. Oklahoma City, 161 Okl. 205 , 17 P.2d 953 .

1935Under such state of facts, we consider the reasoning and rule of this court, announced in the ease of White v. Johnson, 103 Okla. 88 , 229 P. 539 , to apply, where it is held: “Where a party files in a case a motion to strike a pleading from the files, and thereafter files pleadings putting the case at issue, and goes to trial without calling the motion to strike to .the attention of the trial court and having a ruling thereon, an assignment of error in the motion for a new trial that the court erred in not sustaining the motion to strike, comes too late, and presents nothing for review.” Whil

1935Under such state of facts, we consider the reasoning and rule of this court, announced in the ease of White v. Johnson, 103 Okla. 88 , 229 P. 539 , to apply, where it is held: “Where a party files in a case a motion to strike a pleading from the files, and thereafter files pleadings putting the case at issue, and goes to trial without calling the motion to strike to .the attention of the trial court and having a ruling thereon, an assignment of error in the motion for a new trial that the court erred in not sustaining the motion to strike, comes too late, and presents nothing for review.” Whil

1918I concur in the conclusion reached and dissent from the reasoning and the rule announced in the opinion of the court in this case for the same reason that I did the same in the case of Garland v. Union Trust Co., 63 Okla. 243 , 165 Pac. 197 .

1918I concur in the conclusion reached and dissent from the reasoning and the rule announced in the opinion of the court in this case for the same reason that I did the same in the case of Garland v. Union Trust Co., 63 Okla. 243 , 165 Pac. 197 .

1916Fisk v. Westover, 4 S. D. 233, 55 N. W. 961 , 46 Am.

1912Kent v. Laffan, *76 2 Cal. 595 ; McMillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 365 , 70 Am.

1912Kent v. Laffan, *76 2 Cal. 595 ; McMillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 365 , 70 Am.

1909Mr. Justice Brewer in Lewis v. Commissioner, 16 Kan. 102 , 22 Am.

1908The Supreme Court of Kansas in construing an identical statute in the case of State v. Bowles, 70 Kan. 821 , 79 Pac. 726 , 69 L.

1908The Supreme Court of Kansas in construing an identical statute in the case of State v. Bowles, 70 Kan. 821 , 79 Pac. 726 , 69 L.