holding rule in Oklahoma

2023Indeed, the statutory language appears to indicate the opposite: that the Legislature did not intend to revoke the flexibility a district court might otherwise have in scheduling proceedings in a case. ¶26 Mother cites to Crussell v. Osborn , 1979 OK CIV APP 11 592 P.2d 984 Crussell are plainly distinguishable in that they involved an order of withdrawal "on the same day" that the trial was to be held, a failure on the part of the defendant to appear, a default judgment against the defendant, and a refusal on the part of the district court to vacate the default judgment, we do not disagree wit

2023Indeed, the statutory language appears to indicate the opposite: that the Legislature did not intend to revoke the flexibility a district court might otherwise have in scheduling proceedings in a case. ¶26 Mother cites to Crussell v. Osborn , 1979 OK CIV APP 11 592 P.2d 984 Crussell are plainly distinguishable in that they involved an order of withdrawal "on the same day" that the trial was to be held, a failure on the part of the defendant to appear, a default judgment against the defendant, and a refusal on the part of the district court to vacate the default judgment, we do not disagree wit

1974“Before the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur may be invoked to justify the inference of negligence on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff must prove what caused the damage, and that the 'thing’ causing said damage was tinder the control and management of the defendant or his servants, since the doctrine does not go to the extent of implying that one may, from the mere fact of the injury, infer what physical acts produced the injury. (case citation).” (Emphasis supplied) The doctrine has been applied to automatic elevator injury cases (First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. (196

1974“Before the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur may be invoked to justify the inference of negligence on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff must prove what caused the damage, and that the 'thing’ causing said damage was tinder the control and management of the defendant or his servants, since the doctrine does not go to the extent of implying that one may, from the mere fact of the injury, infer what physical acts produced the injury. (case citation).” (Emphasis supplied) The doctrine has been applied to automatic elevator injury cases (First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. (196

1974In Briscoe, Appellant v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., Appellee, No. 44,109, decided March 13, 1973, Okl., 509 P.2d 126 , *1027 this court reiterated a previous holding on the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur,” saying that it meant that: . . whenever a thing which produced the injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the defendant, and the occurrence is such as in the ordinary course of events does not happen if due care has been used, the fact of the happening of the accident creates the presumption that the accident and injury resulted from the negligence of defendant.

1974“Before the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur may be invoked to justify the inference of negligence on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff must prove what caused the damage, and that the 'thing’ causing said damage was tinder the control and management of the defendant or his servants, since the doctrine does not go to the extent of implying that one may, from the mere fact of the injury, infer what physical acts produced the injury. (case citation).” (Emphasis supplied) The doctrine has been applied to automatic elevator injury cases (First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. (196

1956The evidence does not meet the requirements of the holding or rule announced in the case of Jones v. Jones, Okl., 290 P.2d 757, 758 , as follows: “Where plaintiff, in a suit to quiet title, alleges ownership of the equitable title, although he had conveyed the naked legal title to another, and the heirs of the grantee, as defendants, rely upon their assertion that the grantor is not' in a position to maintain the suit in equity because he had executed the deed to hinder and defraud creditors; the burden of proving the fraudulent intent of the grantor is upon them.

1930The contentions of the petitioner have been fully disposed of by this court by the holding and the principle announced in the recent case of Thompson v. Industrial Commission et al., 138 Okla. 106 , 280 Pac. 597 , in which case the court, through Justice Clark, held In the third paragraph of the syllabus as follows: “Where the State Industrial ¡Commission makes an award for permanent partial disability without considering or passing upon the question of temporary total disability, and the record discloses that petitioner was temporarily totally disabled for a period of time, said award will be

1930The contentions of the petitioner have been fully disposed of by this court by the holding and the principle announced in the recent case of Thompson v. Industrial Commission et al., 138 Okla. 106 , 280 Pac. 597 , in which case the court, through Justice Clark, held In the third paragraph of the syllabus as follows: “Where the State Industrial ¡Commission makes an award for permanent partial disability without considering or passing upon the question of temporary total disability, and the record discloses that petitioner was temporarily totally disabled for a period of time, said award will be

1930The contentions of the petitioner have been fully disposed of by this court by the holding and the principle announced in the recent case of Thompson v. Industrial Commission et al., 138 Okla. 106 , 280 Pac. 597 , in which case the court, through Justice Clark, held In the third paragraph of the syllabus as follows: “Where the State Industrial ¡Commission makes an award for permanent partial disability without considering or passing upon the question of temporary total disability, and the record discloses that petitioner was temporarily totally disabled for a period of time, said award will be

1930The contentions of the petitioner have been fully disposed of by this court by the holding and the principle announced in the recent case of Thompson v. Industrial Commission et al., 138 Okla. 106 , 280 Pac. 597 , in which case the court, through Justice Clark, held In the third paragraph of the syllabus as follows: “Where the State Industrial ¡Commission makes an award for permanent partial disability without considering or passing upon the question of temporary total disability, and the record discloses that petitioner was temporarily totally disabled for a period of time, said award will be

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1928The purpose of denying the owner the right to introduce such notes in evidence is to compel the payment of the tax.” The following cases further sustain the holding and rule enunciated in the cases above: McIntosh v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., 117 Okla. 248 , 246 Pac. 403 ; White, Trustee, v. Grounds, 121 Okla. 171 , 249 Pac. 271 .

1928The purpose of denying the owner the right to introduce such notes in evidence is to compel the payment of the tax.” The following cases further sustain the holding and rule enunciated in the cases above: McIntosh v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., 117 Okla. 248 , 246 Pac. 403 ; White, Trustee, v. Grounds, 121 Okla. 171 , 249 Pac. 271 .

1928The purpose of denying the owner the right to introduce such notes in evidence is to compel the payment of the tax.” The following cases further sustain the holding and rule enunciated in the cases above: McIntosh v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., 117 Okla. 248 , 246 Pac. 403 ; White, Trustee, v. Grounds, 121 Okla. 171 , 249 Pac. 271 .

1928The purpose of denying the owner the right to introduce such notes in evidence is to compel the payment of the tax.” The following cases further sustain the holding and rule enunciated in the cases above: McIntosh v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., 117 Okla. 248 , 246 Pac. 403 ; White, Trustee, v. Grounds, 121 Okla. 171 , 249 Pac. 271 .

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1928In the case of Guss v. Nelson, 14 Okla. 296 , 78 Pac. 170 , the territorial Supreme Court said: “Where, at the conclusion of a trial had before the court without a jury, the court orally reviews the evidence, and expresses its opinions upon the law and the facts involved in the case, and where there are no special findings of fact and conclusions of law asked for, and where the findings and judgment of the court are embodied in a journal entry, the oral opinion expressed by the court performs no office in a case-made, and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from a judgment of the tria

1911Cr. 398 , 112 Pac. 36 , Mr. Justice Eiehardson, delivering the opinion of the court, used the following language: “That no misunderstanding with respect to the statements made above as to the necessity of the verification of informations may arise, we deem it proper to state, further, that the holding that such requirement exists relates solely to informations charging a misdemeanor.