objections exception in Oklahoma

1974These truths are very clearly and intelligently dealt with in the following quotation from Sloane v. Southern California Railway Co., 111 Cal. 668 , 44 P. 320, 322 , 32 L.R.A. 193 : ‘The real question presented by the objections and exception of the appellant is whether the subsequent nervous disturbance of the plaintiff was a suffering of the body or of the mind.

1974These truths are very clearly and intelligently dealt with in the following quotation from Sloane v. Southern California Railway Co., 111 Cal. 668 , 44 P. 320, 322 , 32 L.R.A. 193 : ‘The real question presented by the objections and exception of the appellant is whether the subsequent nervous disturbance of the plaintiff was a suffering of the body or of the mind.

1973The objections to the rule first stated in Sussex were rather bluntly stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in 1913 in his dissenting opinion in Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 , 57 L.Ed. 820 .

1973The objections to the rule first stated in Sussex were rather bluntly stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in 1913 in his dissenting opinion in Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 , 57 L.Ed. 820 .

1942Cr. 46 , 70 P. 2d 145, 146 , it is said: “In cases of this kind the name of the owner or occupant is employed to designate or describe the place, it particularizes the place, for a person may own many places, but as a usual thing occupies only one.” Upon the undisputed facts and the state’s testimony, it appears that the search and seizure in this case was an unauthorized trespass, and that the state’s evidence was improperly admitted over the defendant’s objections and in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights.

1935“The judgment of the district court of Pottawatomie county is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court, with directions to vacate the judgment appealed from, and to enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in rhe sum of $200, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from the 17th day of October, 1928, together with the costs of this action to that date.” Counsel for plaintiff in error relies upon the case of Gaddis v. Williams, 81 Okla. 289 , 198 P 483 , wherein the district court, on appeal from the justice court, and over the objections

1935“The judgment of the district court of Pottawatomie county is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court, with directions to vacate the judgment appealed from, and to enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in rhe sum of $200, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from the 17th day of October, 1928, together with the costs of this action to that date.” Counsel for plaintiff in error relies upon the case of Gaddis v. Williams, 81 Okla. 289 , 198 P 483 , wherein the district court, on appeal from the justice court, and over the objections

1927This case in all its essential features is the same as the case of Jones v. State, 36 Okla.

1923This instruction, taken in connection with instructions 7 and S, correctly states the law applicable to the instant case in accordance with the law anounced in Mounts v. Boardman Co., 79 Okla. 90 ; 191 Pac. 362 , and it is our opinion that the defendant’s objections to instruction 6 are untenable.

1923This instruction, taken in connection with instructions 7 and S, correctly states the law applicable to the instant case in accordance with the law anounced in Mounts v. Boardman Co., 79 Okla. 90 ; 191 Pac. 362 , and it is our opinion that the defendant’s objections to instruction 6 are untenable.