Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1933–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fanning v. Browngreen2 sentences2015Unless Estrada has made fraud a basis or essential element of his veil-piercing theory, the particularity requirement does not apply. 1 21 Moreover, in Fanning, the Court went on to state that even if the allegations in the petition were not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, "the trial court still erred in dismissing the case without providing [the plaintiff] with an opportunity to amend her complaint." 2004 OK 7, ¶ 23 , 85 P.3d 841 . 2015Unless Estrada has made fraud a basis or essential element of his veil-piercing theory, the particularity requirement does not apply. ¶21 Moreover, in Fanning , the Court went on to state that even if the allegations in the petition were not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, "the trial court still erred in dismissing the case without providing [the plaintiff] with an opportunity to amend her complaint." 2004 OK 7, ¶ 23. | 1 | 2 |
LABORERS COMBINED FUNDS v. Ruscittogreen1 sentence2015Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Ceiling Wall Sys., Inc., 915 F.Supp. 939, 942-43 (N.D.Ill.1996) ("[Blecause fraud is not a prerequisite to piercing the corporate veil, Rule 9(b) does not apply to alter ego allegations."); Laborers Combined Funds of Western Pa. v. Ruscitto, 848 F.Supp. 598, 600-01 (W.D.Pa.1994) (Rule 8(a), which requires a short and plain statement of the claim, applies to alter ego allegations "unless fraud is a necessary element of the claim.") (footnote omitted) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Chicago District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Ceiling Wall Systems, Inc.green1 sentence2015Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Ceiling Wall Sys., Inc., 915 F.Supp. 939, 942-43 (N.D.Ill.1996) ("[Blecause fraud is not a prerequisite to piercing the corporate veil, Rule 9(b) does not apply to alter ego allegations."); Laborers Combined Funds of Western Pa. v. Ruscitto, 848 F.Supp. 598, 600-01 (W.D.Pa.1994) (Rule 8(a), which requires a short and plain statement of the claim, applies to alter ego allegations "unless fraud is a necessary element of the claim.") (footnote omitted) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Beallgreen2 sentences2003Walls, 2000 OK 66, at ¶¶ 10-13 , 11 P.3d at 629-630 . [12] Walls made it abundantly clear that the language in § 761.1(A), using the term "aggrieved consumer" as the person having been given the right to bring a private right of action for damages under the OCPA, requires the consumer to show something more than a violation of the Act; instead for a viable private claim under the OCPA the consumer must show actual damages as a necessary element of a claim. 2000 OK 66, at ¶¶ 9-13 , 11 P.3d at 629-630 ; see also Patterson, supra, 2000 OK 92, at ¶¶ 30-31 , 19 P.3d at 846 (third element of a plain 2003Walls, 2000 OK 66, at ¶¶ 10-13 , 11 P.3d at 629-630 . [12] Walls made it abundantly clear that the language in § 761.1(A), using the term "aggrieved consumer" as the person having been given the right to bring a private right of action for damages under the OCPA, requires the consumer to show something more than a violation of the Act; instead for a viable private claim under the OCPA the consumer must show actual damages as a necessary element of a claim. 2000 OK 66, at ¶¶ 9-13 , 11 P.3d at 629-630 ; see also Patterson, supra, 2000 OK 92, at ¶¶ 30-31 , 19 P.3d at 846 (third element of a plain | 1 | 1 |
Travelers Express Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Kenneth Cory, Controller of the State of Californiagreen1 sentence1998Travelers Express Co. v. Cory, 664 F.2d 763, 766 (9th Cir.1981); Copitas v. Retail Clerks Intern. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Skinner v. John Deere Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2005Because disagreements *1112 can arise concerning the amount of coverage, cause of loss, and breach of policy conditions, the tort of bad faith does not prevent the insurer from resisting payment or resorting to a judicial forum to resolve a legitimate dispute." Skinner v. John Deere Insurance Company, 2000 OK 18, ¶ 16 , 998 P.2d 1219, 1223 . 2005Because disagreements *1112 can arise concerning the amount of coverage, cause of loss, and breach of policy conditions, the tort of bad faith does not prevent the insurer from resisting payment or resorting to a judicial forum to resolve a legitimate dispute." Skinner v. John Deere Insurance Company, 2000 OK 18, ¶ 16 , 998 P.2d 1219, 1223 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Green v. Harris
green
2 sentences2004Green, 2003 OK 55 at ¶ 23 , 70 P.3d at 871 . 2004Green, 2003 OK 55 at ¶ 23 , 70 P.3d at 871 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Walls v. American Tobacco Co.
green
2 sentences2003Walls, 2000 OK 66, at ¶¶ 10-13 , 11 P.3d at 629-630 . [12] Walls made it abundantly clear that the language in § 761.1(A), using the term "aggrieved consumer" as the person having been given the right to bring a private right of action for damages under the OCPA, requires the consumer to show something more than a violation of the Act; instead for a viable private claim under the OCPA the consumer must show actual damages as a necessary element of a claim. 2000 OK 66, at ¶¶ 9-13 , 11 P.3d at 629-630 ; see also Patterson, supra, 2000 OK 92, at ¶¶ 30-31 , 19 P.3d at 846 (third element of a plain 2003Walls, 2000 OK 66, at ¶¶ 10-13 , 11 P.3d at 629-630 . [12] Walls made it abundantly clear that the language in § 761.1(A), using the term "aggrieved consumer" as the person having been given the right to bring a private right of action for damages under the OCPA, requires the consumer to show something more than a violation of the Act; instead for a viable private claim under the OCPA the consumer must show actual damages as a necessary element of a claim. 2000 OK 66, at ¶¶ 9-13 , 11 P.3d at 629-630 ; see also Patterson, supra, 2000 OK 92, at ¶¶ 30-31 , 19 P.3d at 846 (third element of a plain | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Whitlock v. Bob Moore Cadillac, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000In Whitlock v. Bob Moore Cadillae, Inc., 1997 OK 56 , 938 P.2d 737 , the plaintiff sued for damages based on fraud and violation of the OCPA. 2000In Whitlock v. Bob Moore Cadillae, Inc., 1997 OK 56 , 938 P.2d 737 , the plaintiff sued for damages based on fraud and violation of the OCPA. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
McIntosh v. Limestone National Bank
green
1 sentence1998The claims raised against ORU now are barred under the doctrine of res judicata, McIntosh v. Limestone National Bank, 1995 OK CIV APP 24 , 894 P.2d 1145 . ¶ 14 As to the remaining Appellees, i.e., the individuals and Realty, the property management company for whom Appellee David works, we agree with the trial court that Metroplex’s amended petition fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B)(6). *931 ¶ 15 As to Metroplex’s claims of negligence against the remaining Appellees, there is no legal duty owed by them to Metroplex which is a necessary el | 1 | 1998–1998 |
York v. Warren Oil & Gas Co.
green
1 sentence1933In Mills-Willingham text on Law of Oil and Gas, entry was not included as a necessary element in the rule of cotenancy announced at page 264: “In those states where a lease by one co-tenant is valid as to the other tenants in common, the lessee of one cotenant becomes a tenant in common with the cotenants of his lessor, in the snbject-matter of the lease.” In the case of York v. Warren Oil & Gas Co. (Ky.) 229 S. W. 114 , it was said in defining the rights of cotenants and their lessees, that: “The appellee had the right, at any time after the execution of the lease to it, to go onto any part o | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.