Slagell v. Slagell, No. 91676.
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | HARGRAVE, V.C.J. |
| Citation | 2000 OK 5,995 P.2d 1141 |
| Decision Date | 25 January 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 91676. |
| Parties | Harold SLAGELL, Plaintiff/Appellant v. Walter SLAGELL, Executor of the Estate of Maurice Slagell, Deceased, Defendant/Appellee. |
995 P.2d 1141
2000 OK 5
v.
Walter SLAGELL, Executor of the Estate of Maurice Slagell, Deceased, Defendant/Appellee
No. 91676.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
January 25, 2000.
Randolph S. Meacham, RANDOLPH S. MEACHAM, P.C., Clinton, Oklahoma, for Appellant.
F.H. Wright, F.H. WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HARGRAVE, V.C.J.
¶ 1 The issue is whether the appeal should be dismissed because of appellant's failure to preserve any issues for review where no errors were raised in his motion for new trial. Finding that the case is controlled by Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, 681 P.2d 757 (Okla.1984), we granted certiorari and now vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and dismiss the appeal.
¶ 2 Appellant filed an action in 1988 to terminate a family partnership. One of the brothers, Maurice, died in an automobile accident
¶ 3 Appellee apparently distributed the $145,000 in 1996 to Maurice's brothers and sisters, except for the appellant, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 1053. In 1997, appellant Harold Slagell sued appellee, as executor of Maurice's estate, seeking his share of the wrongful death claim settlement. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the appellee's motion for summary judgment finding that, 1) the wrongful death proceeds attributable to Maurice's death were distributed in accordance with 12 O.S.1991 § 1053 and not under the terms of Maurice's will or trust, and 2) the plaintiff's claim to the wrongful death settlement proceeds was released by the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties.
¶ 4 Appellant filed a motion for new trial which stated only that "the decision of the court is not sustained by the evidence, and is contrary to the law of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hedrick v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Pub. Safety, No. 110199.
...required to rule out all theories of liability fairly comprised within the evidentiary materials before [it].’ ”); Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, ¶ 8, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (points of law identified during hearing on motion for new trial may be reviewed on appeal since those points of law wer......
-
Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, Case Number: 114082
...available to him at the time of the filing of his motion for a new trial but were not therein asserted.29 See, e.g., Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, ¶¶7–8, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (appeal dismissed because assignments of error in the appeal were not raised by that party's motion for new trial an......
-
Indep. Sch. Dist. of Okla. Cnty. v. Hofmeister, No. 117,081
...6. That the verdict, report, or decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence, or is contrary to law...."See also Slagell v. Slagell , 2000 OK 5, ¶¶ 5-9, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (a new trial motion is insufficient unless its allegations inform the trial court of the specific defects for whic......
-
Beyrer v. The Mule, LLC, 118075
...in the motion before the trial court, and rule applied to a motion to reconsider construed as a motion for new trial); Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, 995 P.2d 1141 (rule applied to dismiss appeal); Fed. Corp. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 13 of Pushmataha Cty., 1978 OK CIV APP 55, 606 P.2d 1141,......
-
Hedrick v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Pub. Safety, No. 110199.
...required to rule out all theories of liability fairly comprised within the evidentiary materials before [it].’ ”); Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, ¶ 8, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (points of law identified during hearing on motion for new trial may be reviewed on appeal since those points of law wer......
-
Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, Case Number: 114082
...available to him at the time of the filing of his motion for a new trial but were not therein asserted.29 See, e.g., Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, ¶¶7–8, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (appeal dismissed because assignments of error in the appeal were not raised by that party's motion for new trial an......
-
Indep. Sch. Dist. of Okla. Cnty. v. Hofmeister, No. 117,081
...6. That the verdict, report, or decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence, or is contrary to law...."See also Slagell v. Slagell , 2000 OK 5, ¶¶ 5-9, 995 P.2d 1141, 1142 (a new trial motion is insufficient unless its allegations inform the trial court of the specific defects for whic......
-
Beyrer v. The Mule, LLC, 118075
...in the motion before the trial court, and rule applied to a motion to reconsider construed as a motion for new trial); Slagell v. Slagell, 2000 OK 5, 995 P.2d 1141 (rule applied to dismiss appeal); Fed. Corp. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 13 of Pushmataha Cty., 1978 OK CIV APP 55, 606 P.2d 1141,......