Restatement rule in Oklahoma

2011Id. 113 "Under the Restatement test an auditor would be liable to a limited group of people embracing (1) those for whose guidance the auditor intended to supply the audit data and (2) those to whom the auditor knows his client intended to supply the audited financial statements." Stroud, 2001 OK 76 , 1 34, 37 P.3d at 794 .

2011Id. 113 "Under the Restatement test an auditor would be liable to a limited group of people embracing (1) those for whose guidance the auditor intended to supply the audit data and (2) those to whom the auditor knows his client intended to supply the audited financial statements." Stroud, 2001 OK 76 , 1 34, 37 P.3d at 794 .

2010Central Plastics Co. v. Goodson, 1975 OK 71 , ¶ 16, 537 P.2d 330, 333 , and Amoco Production Co. v. Lindley, 1980 OK 6, ¶ 41 , 609 P.2d 733, 743 (quoting the Restatement of Torts, § 757, Comment b, at p. 6 (1939).

2010Central Plastics Co. v. Goodson, 1975 OK 71 , ¶ 16, 537 P.2d 330, 333 , and Amoco Production Co. v. Lindley, 1980 OK 6, ¶ 41 , 609 P.2d 733, 743 (quoting the Restatement of Torts, § 757, Comment b, at p. 6 (1939).

2010In ALH Holding Co. v. Bank of Telluride, 18 P.3d 742 (Colo.2000), the buyer of property borrowed $110,000 from the vendor, secured by a vendor's purchase money deed of trust, 9 and borrowed $55,000 from a bank for the balance of the purchase price, also secured by a deed of trust.

2010In ALH Holding Co. v. Bank of Telluride, 18 P.3d 742 (Colo.2000), the buyer of property borrowed $110,000 from the vendor, secured by a vendor's purchase money deed of trust, 9 and borrowed $55,000 from a bank for the balance of the purchase price, also secured by a deed of trust.

2008The "fairness" of particular competitive acts is the specific focus of other statutes; [9] the "true test of legality" pursuant to a rule of reason analysis is whether the restraint "merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition." Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. U.S., 246 U.S. 231, 238 , 38 S.Ct. 242, 244 , 62 L.Ed. 683 (1918). [10] ¶ 32 The Restatement analysis may provide information that is relevant to determining the "reasonableness" of a restrictive covenant, but that approach can also be incomplete or intr

2008The "fairness" of particular competitive acts is the specific focus of other statutes; [9] the "true test of legality" pursuant to a rule of reason analysis is whether the restraint "merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition." Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. U.S., 246 U.S. 231, 238 , 38 S.Ct. 242, 244 , 62 L.Ed. 683 (1918). [10] ¶ 32 The Restatement analysis may provide information that is relevant to determining the "reasonableness" of a restrictive covenant, but that approach can also be incomplete or intr

2008Co., 1970 OK 172 , ¶ 8, 474 P.2d 961, 963 . ¶ 33 Consequently, to the extent that Lundy argues the "reasonableness" of the Non-Solicitation Agreement is determined by the Restatement test, that argument fails as a matter of law.

2008Co., 1970 OK 172 , ¶ 8, 474 P.2d 961, 963 . ¶ 33 Consequently, to the extent that Lundy argues the "reasonableness" of the Non-Solicitation Agreement is determined by the Restatement test, that argument fails as a matter of law.

1994In the context of guilty pleas, the first half of the Strickland v. Washington test is nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence already set forth in Tollett v. Henderson, supra, [ 411 U.S. 258 , 93 S.Ct. 1602 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) ] and McMann v. Richardson, supra, [ 397 U.S. 759 , 96 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970) ].

1994In the context of guilty pleas, the first half of the Strickland v. Washington test is nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence already set forth in Tollett v. Henderson, supra, [ 411 U.S. 258 , 93 S.Ct. 1602 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) ] and McMann v. Richardson, supra, [ 397 U.S. 759 , 96 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970) ].

1994In the context of guilty pleas, the first half of the Strickland v. Washington test is nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence already set forth in Tollett v. Henderson, supra, [ 411 U.S. 258 , 93 S.Ct. 1602 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) ] and McMann v. Richardson, supra, [ 397 U.S. 759 , 96 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970) ].

1994In the context of guilty pleas, the first half of the Strickland v. Washington test is nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence already set forth in Tollett v. Henderson, supra, [ 411 U.S. 258 , 93 S.Ct. 1602 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) ] and McMann v. Richardson, supra, [ 397 U.S. 759 , 96 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970) ].

1990Panama cites to Collins Radio Co. of Dallas v. Bell, infra note 50 and Rhody v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 771 F.2d 1416 [10th Cir.1985] as authority for application of the Restatement test to its breach of contract theory. 47 .

1990Panama cites to Collins Radio Co. of Dallas v. Bell, infra note 50 and Rhody v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 771 F.2d 1416 [10th Cir.1985] as authority for application of the Restatement test to its breach of contract theory. 47 .

1978Froelich was cited with approval in Dawson v. Associates Financial Service Co. of Kansas, Inc., 215 Kan. 814 , 529 P.2d 104 (1976) and the Court said: “We are persuaded that the restatement rule is the proper rule to adopt.

1978Froelich was cited with approval in Dawson v. Associates Financial Service Co. of Kansas, Inc., 215 Kan. 814 , 529 P.2d 104 (1976) and the Court said: “We are persuaded that the restatement rule is the proper rule to adopt.

1965The Hilyard case quotes from Scott v. State, 59 *86 Old.Cr. 231, 57 P.2d 639 , which is a restatement of the rule quoted above from the Shacklett case.