without hearing in Oklahoma

1990In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 650 , 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), *1251 the Court said: “we recognize, as we have in other cases, that due process of law does not require a hearing ‘in every conceivable case of government impairment of private interest.” Due process of law does not guarantee any particular form of procedure.

1990In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 650 , 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), *1251 the Court said: “we recognize, as we have in other cases, that due process of law does not require a hearing ‘in every conceivable case of government impairment of private interest.” Due process of law does not guarantee any particular form of procedure.

1971While it is always difficult to assess a precise monetary loss on personal injury, we find under the circumstances the jury’s verdict to be reasonable and within proper limits. *1311 As was stated in the case of White v. Burton, 180 Okl. 499 , 71 P.2d 694 (1937), “there is one thing above all others which convinces us that no prejudice resulted to the defendant from these things, and that is the amount of the verdict.” While we seriously pause and reflect anytime before affirming a judgment when obvious error is committed, we do so when it is equally as obvious that the error resulted in no de

1971While it is always difficult to assess a precise monetary loss on personal injury, we find under the circumstances the jury’s verdict to be reasonable and within proper limits. *1311 As was stated in the case of White v. Burton, 180 Okl. 499 , 71 P.2d 694 (1937), “there is one thing above all others which convinces us that no prejudice resulted to the defendant from these things, and that is the amount of the verdict.” While we seriously pause and reflect anytime before affirming a judgment when obvious error is committed, we do so when it is equally as obvious that the error resulted in no de

1934In the ease of Halsell v. Renfrow, 14 Okla. 674 , 78 P. 118 , it is declared that: ‘‘A memorandum to be sufficient under the statute of frauds must be complete in itself and leave nothing to rest in parol.” This seems to be a doctrine pronounced and adhered to by this court without exception and by numerous decisions.

1934In the ease of Halsell v. Renfrow, 14 Okla. 674 , 78 P. 118 , it is declared that: ‘‘A memorandum to be sufficient under the statute of frauds must be complete in itself and leave nothing to rest in parol.” This seems to be a doctrine pronounced and adhered to by this court without exception and by numerous decisions.

1931The Commission shall have authority to consider such petition and to dismiss the same without a hearing if in its judgment the same should not be set for hearing;.the expense of such hearings or investigation, including necessary medical examinations, shall be paid by the employer or insurance carrier, and such expense may be included in the final award: If the Commission decides it is for the best interests of both parties to said petition that a final award be made, a decision shall be rendered accordingly, and the Commission may make an award that shall be final as to the rights of all part

1918In this case the court announced the following rule: ‘ The failure to file a motion for a new trial within three days from the rendition of the verdict or decision, or within the term at which the same was rendered, may be excused by showing that the party was unavoidably prevented from so' doing; and where the trial court has taken up and considered such motion and found that such unavoidable casualty .existed, but denied the motion on the ground that the trial court was without error, a motion in this court to dismiss the' appeal on the ground that the "questions in the record could not be r

1910In Cochran and Blevine v. U.S., 14 Okla. 111 , Judge Burwell said: "But it is said that the court, on its own motion, excused a juror after the defendant's challenges were all exhausted.

1910In Cochran and Blevine v. U. S., 14 Okla. 111 , Judge Burwell said: “But it is said that the court, on its own motion, excused a juror after the defendant’s challenges were all exhausted.