refusal instruction in Oklahoma

2008Department of Public Safety, 2006 OK CIV APP at ¶8, 131 P.3d at 147 .

1931Evidence has been introduced by the plaintiff in this case tending' to show that plaintiff or some members of plaintiff’s family have been sick, and you are instructed not to consider such evidence in arriving at a verdict in the ease, for the reason that it has not been shown or established sufficiently by the evidence that such sickness, if any, was the result of defendant’s act, and it has not been shown that the operation of the sewer system by defendant was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff’s sickness or sickness of plaintiff’s family.” The defendant contends that the refusal wa

1928To sustain this contention, defendant cites Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578 , 25 L.

1928To sustain this contention, defendant cites Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578 , 25 L.

1926Counsel cites Muller v. Kelley, 125 Fed. 212 , but in that case there was much evidence concerning the reasonableness of the fee charged, and it is said: “Under theSse circumstances * * * and the testimony that the fee charged was far in excess of the value of the services rendered, we think the plaintiff was entitled to have the jury pass upon his mental capacity * * * and to scrutinize the transaction, and see that it was fair and that no unconscionable advantage had been taken either of the necessities or the ignorance of the client.” Citing Shumaker v. Stiles, 102 Pa. 553 , and Taylor v. B

1922Co. v. Toleikis, 67 Okla. 299 , 171 Pac. 17 ; Citizens’ Bank of Headrick v. Citizens’ State Bank of Altus, 75 Okla. 225 , 182 Pac. 657 ; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 542 ; Oil Fields & Santa Fe Ry.

1922Co. v. Toleikis, 67 Okla. 299 , 171 Pac. 17 ; Citizens’ Bank of Headrick v. Citizens’ State Bank of Altus, 75 Okla. 225 , 182 Pac. 657 ; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 542 ; Oil Fields & Santa Fe Ry.

1922Co. v. Toleikis, 67 Okla. 299 , 171 Pac. 17 ; Citizens’ Bank of Headrick v. Citizens’ State Bank of Altus, 75 Okla. 225 , 182 Pac. 657 ; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 542 ; Oil Fields & Santa Fe Ry.

1922Co. v. Toleikis, 67 Okla. 299 , 171 Pac. 17 ; Citizens’ Bank of Headrick v. Citizens’ State Bank of Altus, 75 Okla. 225 , 182 Pac. 657 ; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 542 ; Oil Fields & Santa Fe Ry.

1922Co. v. Toleikis, 67 Okla. 299 , 171 Pac. 17 ; Citizens’ Bank of Headrick v. Citizens’ State Bank of Altus, 75 Okla. 225 , 182 Pac. 657 ; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 542 ; Oil Fields & Santa Fe Ry.

1918Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross, 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 892 ; Eisminger v. Beman, 32 Okla. 818 , 124 Pac. 289 ; Enid City Ry.

1918Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross, 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 892 ; Eisminger v. Beman, 32 Okla. 818 , 124 Pac. 289 ; Enid City Ry.

1918Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross, 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 892 ; Eisminger v. Beman, 32 Okla. 818 , 124 Pac. 289 ; Enid City Ry.

1918Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross, 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 892 ; Eisminger v. Beman, 32 Okla. 818 , 124 Pac. 289 ; Enid City Ry.

1914Harding v. Gillett et al., 25 Okla. 99 , 107 Pac. 665 ; Metropolitan Ry.

1913Standifer v. Sullivan„ 30 Okla. 365 , 120 Pac. 624 ; Nat.

1913Standifer v. Sullivan„ 30 Okla. 365 , 120 Pac. 624 ; Nat.

1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 .

1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 .

1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 .

1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 .

1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 .

1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 .

1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L.

1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L.

1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L.

1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L.

1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L.

1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L.