Elliott v. Jenkins
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- William T. Dickson v. BNSF Railway Company and Fellers Snider Blakenship Bailey & Tippens, P.C. (Tex. App. 2015)
- Mathews v. Smith (Okla. 1934)
- Robey v. Shapiro, Marianos & Cejda, L.L.C. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2004)
- City of Barnsdall v. Curnutt (Okla. 1945)
- Carson v. City of Wichita (Kan. 1938)
- Sterling Milk Products Co. v. Brown (Okla. 1935)
- Owens v. Wilson (Okla. 1932)
- Sterling Milk Products Co. v. Brown (Okla. 1930)
- Western States Oil & Land Co. v. Helms (Okla. 1930)
- Blue v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (Kan. 1928)
- Simpson v. Baker (Okla. 1926)
- Callahan v. Cowley Riddle (Okla. 1926)
- Self v. Hardgrave (Okla. 1926)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This appeal is from an order of the trial court setting aside the verdict of- the- jury in favor of defendant, plaintiff in error here, in an election contest.
The motion for new trial set out a number of grounds, but the order of the court, sustaining the motion does not state the grounds upon which new trial was granted. A number' of errors are assigned by defendant in the petition in error, all of which relate to the proposition that the verdict is sustained by the record in the case. In Conservative Loan Co. v. Salsbury, 75 Okla. 194, 182 Pac. 685, it is held:
“The discretion of the trial court in granting a new trial is so broad that its action in so doing will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record shows clearly that the court has erred in its view of some pure and unmixed question of law, and that the order granting a new trial is based upon such erroneous view of the law.”
Prom an examination of the order granting a new trial, we are unable to tell upon what grounds the court based its judgment in vacating the verdict and granting a new trial. Therefore, we cannot say the court erred with respect to some pure, simple, and unmixed question of law in ordering a new trial.
Por the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss is sustained and the appeal dismissed upon authority of Conservative Loan Co. v. Salsbury, supra.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.