10 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of McAlester v. Kinggreen2 sentences2016City of McAlester v. King, 1957 OK 270, ¶ 13 , 317 P.2d 265, 270 (rejecting nuisance claim arising from a water tower constructed on an adjacent tract which affected plaintiffs’ view and impaired lighting). 12 Laubenstein’s entire case hinged on the cellular tower being visually unpleasant. 2016City of McAlester v. King, 1957 OK 270, ¶ 13 , 317 P.2d 265, 270 (rejecting nuisance claim arising from a water tower constructed on an adjacent tract which affected plaintiffs’ view and impaired lighting). 12 Laubenstein’s entire case hinged on the cellular tower being visually unpleasant. | 2 | 2 |
N.C. Corff Partnership, Ltd. v. OXY USA, Inc.green2 sentences2010Corff Partnership, Ltd. v. OXY USA, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 92, ¶ 15 , 929 P.2d 288, 293 (correctly stating, according to the Supreme Court in Money-penvy, the general rule that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to actions for temporary damages resulting from a nuisance does not bar the action but only recovery for damages occurring more than two years prior to filing of the suit). (12 As noted by Vranesevich, Craft's motion for summary judgment does not address the nuisance issue. 2010Corff Partnership, Ltd. v. OXY USA, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 92, ¶ 15 , 929 P.2d 288, 293 (correctly stating, according to the Supreme Court in Money-penvy, the general rule that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to actions for temporary damages resulting from a nuisance does not bar the action but only recovery for damages occurring more than two years prior to filing of the suit). (12 As noted by Vranesevich, Craft's motion for summary judgment does not address the nuisance issue. | 2 | 2 |
Borden, Inc. v. Howard Trucking Co., Inc.green2 sentences2023Of Weld , 747 P.2d 6, 9 (Colo. App. 1987) (rental value of replacement vehicle is consequential damages); Borden, Inc. v. Howard Trucking Co. , 454 So.2d 1081, 1090 (La. 1983) (on rehearing) (loss of use was consequential loss, not property loss, covered by insurance policy). ¶11 OMES argues that Truelock does not apply because it involved a nuisance claim, not a specific claim of this type of damages under the GTCA. 2023Of Weld , 747 P.2d 6, 9 (Colo. App. 1987) (rental value of replacement vehicle is consequential damages); Borden, Inc. v. Howard Trucking Co. , 454 So.2d 1081, 1090 (La. 1983) (on rehearing) (loss of use was consequential loss, not property loss, covered by insurance policy). ¶11 OMES argues that Truelock does not apply because it involved a nuisance claim, not a specific claim of this type of damages under the GTCA. | 1 | 1 |
Duggan v. Board of County Commissionersgreen2 sentences2023Of Weld , 747 P.2d 6, 9 (Colo. App. 1987) (rental value of replacement vehicle is consequential damages); Borden, Inc. v. Howard Trucking Co. , 454 So.2d 1081, 1090 (La. 1983) (on rehearing) (loss of use was consequential loss, not property loss, covered by insurance policy). ¶11 OMES argues that Truelock does not apply because it involved a nuisance claim, not a specific claim of this type of damages under the GTCA. 2023Of Weld , 747 P.2d 6, 9 (Colo. App. 1987) (rental value of replacement vehicle is consequential damages); Borden, Inc. v. Howard Trucking Co. , 454 So.2d 1081, 1090 (La. 1983) (on rehearing) (loss of use was consequential loss, not property loss, covered by insurance policy). ¶11 OMES argues that Truelock does not apply because it involved a nuisance claim, not a specific claim of this type of damages under the GTCA. | 1 | 1 |
Greyhound Leasing & Financial Corporation, on Behalf of Itself and Others Similarly Situated v. Joiner City Unitgreen1 sentence1997See also Greyhound Leasing, 444 F.2d at 442 . | 1 | 1 |
City of Shawnee v. Bryantgreen1 sentence1996See City of Shawnee v. Bryant, 310 P.2d 754 (Okla.1957); McKay v. City of Enid, 26 Okla. 275 , 109 P. 520 (1910). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Truelock v. City of Del City
green
2 sentences2011Truelock, 1998 OK 64, ¶9 , 967 P.2d at 1187 . 2011Truelock, 1998 OK 64, ¶9 , 967 P.2d at 1187 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re Grand River Dam Authority
green
1 sentence2009In No. 104,643, the Court of Civil Appeals held the following: Additionally, the Court of Civil Appeals [in appeal No. 98,917] rejected landowners' argument that the construction of the power transmission lines constitutes a public nuisance, citing In re Petition of Grand River Dam Authority, 1971 OK 48 , 484 P.2d 505 , and 18 0.8.2001 §§ 4837.2(d), (h), (k) and noting "nothing done under express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance." Because the Court of Civil Appeals previously addressed and decided these issues in its Opinion on the prior appeal of the injunction in No. 98,917, t | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Darling v. Quail Creek Petroleum Management Corp.
neutral
2 sentences2003Darling v. Quail Creek Petroleum Management Corp., 1989 OK CIV APP 54, ¶ 8 , 778 P.2d 943, 945 . ¶4 The majority opinion today fails to appreciate that a nuisance claim raises additional issues such as causation, liability, and applicable statute of limitations. 2003Darling v. Quail Creek Petroleum Management Corp., 1989 OK CIV APP 54, ¶ 8 , 778 P.2d 943, 945 . ¶ 4 The majority opinion today fails to appreciate that a nuisance claim raises additional issues such as causation, liability, and applicable statute of limitations. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Darling v. QUAIL CREEK PETRO. MGT. CORP.
neutral
2 sentences2003Darling v. Quail Creek Petroleum Management Corp., 1989 OK CIV APP 54, ¶ 8 , 778 P.2d 943, 945 . ¶4 The majority opinion today fails to appreciate that a nuisance claim raises additional issues such as causation, liability, and applicable statute of limitations. 2003Darling v. Quail Creek Petroleum Management Corp., 1989 OK CIV APP 54, ¶ 8 , 778 P.2d 943, 945 . ¶ 4 The majority opinion today fails to appreciate that a nuisance claim raises additional issues such as causation, liability, and applicable statute of limitations. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Fairfax Oil Co. v. Bolinger
green
1 sentence1997Id. at 575-76 . ¶ 21 Indeed, as the Fairfax Oil Court points out, the whole purpose of Article II, § 23 is to provide an avenue of recovery when governmental approval of an activity immunizes it against a nuisance claim. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
McKay v. City of Enid
green
2 sentences1996See City of Shawnee v. Bryant, 310 P.2d 754 (Okla.1957); McKay v. City of Enid, 26 Okla. 275 , 109 P. 520 (1910). 1996See City of Shawnee v. Bryant, 310 P.2d 754 (Okla.1957); McKay v. City of Enid, 26 Okla. 275 , 109 P. 520 (1910). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.