proffered instruction in Oklahoma

2001Specially Concur); 1 Kinsey, 798 P2d at 633 2 However, the Court's proffered instruction does not correctly state the law as set out in the opinion.

2001Specially Concur); [1] Kinsey, 798 P.2d at 633 . [2] However, the Court's proffered instruction does not correctly state the law as set out in the opinion.

1985Parris v. McCallay, 424 P.2d 62 (Okl.1967); Garret v. Lacquement, 306 P.2d 696 (Okl.1957).

1985Parris v. McCallay, 424 P.2d 62 (Okl. 1967); Garret v. Lacquement, 306 P.2d 696 (Okl. 1957).

1985Parris v. McCallay, 424 P.2d 62 (Okl.1967); Garret v. Lacquement, 306 P.2d 696 (Okl.1957).

1985Parris v. McCallay, 424 P.2d 62 (Okl. 1967); Garret v. Lacquement, 306 P.2d 696 (Okl. 1957).

1977Not only was the proffered instruction not in writing, as required by Jaggers v. State, Okl.Cr., 549 P.2d 384 (1976), but also as we view the record, no evidence was presented which would justify giving the instruction.

1954In support of the proffered instruction, plaintiff relies upon Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Ivery, 201 Okl. 245 , 204 P.2d 978 .

1954In support of the proffered instruction, plaintiff relies upon Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Ivery, 201 Okl. 245 , 204 P.2d 978 .

1944There was no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, so under our rule announced first in Miller v. Price, 168 Okla. 452 , 33 P. 2d 624 , and since consistently *243 Hollowed by us — though the author doubts the soundness of the rule — the trial court correctly refused the proffered instruction on contributory negligence.

1944There was no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, so under our rule announced first in Miller v. Price, 168 Okla. 452 , 33 P. 2d 624 , and since consistently *243 Hollowed by us — though the author doubts the soundness of the rule — the trial court correctly refused the proffered instruction on contributory negligence.

1936The defendants requested and the court refused the following instruction: “You are instructed that if you find from the preponderance of the evidence as defined in other instructions herein, that plaintiff is entitled to recover the property involved herein and such property is not returned to him, his measure of damage would be the price at which he might have bought an equivalent thing in the market nearest the place where the property ought to have been put in his possession, and at such time after the breach of duty upon which his right is founded as would suffice with reasonable diligence

1936The defendants requested and the court refused the following instruction: “You are instructed that if you find from the preponderance of the evidence as defined in other instructions herein, that plaintiff is entitled to recover the property involved herein and such property is not returned to him, his measure of damage would be the price at which he might have bought an equivalent thing in the market nearest the place where the property ought to have been put in his possession, and at such time after the breach of duty upon which his right is founded as would suffice with reasonable diligence

1936The defendants requested and the court refused the following instruction: “You are instructed that if you find from the preponderance of the evidence as defined in other instructions herein, that plaintiff is entitled to recover the property involved herein and such property is not returned to him, his measure of damage would be the price at which he might have bought an equivalent thing in the market nearest the place where the property ought to have been put in his possession, and at such time after the breach of duty upon which his right is founded as would suffice with reasonable diligence

1936The defendants requested and the court refused the following instruction: “You are instructed that if you find from the preponderance of the evidence as defined in other instructions herein, that plaintiff is entitled to recover the property involved herein and such property is not returned to him, his measure of damage would be the price at which he might have bought an equivalent thing in the market nearest the place where the property ought to have been put in his possession, and at such time after the breach of duty upon which his right is founded as would suffice with reasonable diligence

1936The defendants requested and the court refused the following instruction: “You are instructed that if you find from the preponderance of the evidence as defined in other instructions herein, that plaintiff is entitled to recover the property involved herein and such property is not returned to him, his measure of damage would be the price at which he might have bought an equivalent thing in the market nearest the place where the property ought to have been put in his possession, and at such time after the breach of duty upon which his right is founded as would suffice with reasonable diligence

1936The defendants requested and the court refused the following instruction: “You are instructed that if you find from the preponderance of the evidence as defined in other instructions herein, that plaintiff is entitled to recover the property involved herein and such property is not returned to him, his measure of damage would be the price at which he might have bought an equivalent thing in the market nearest the place where the property ought to have been put in his possession, and at such time after the breach of duty upon which his right is founded as would suffice with reasonable diligence

1928In the case of Baker & Strawn v. Miller & Jones. 109 Okla. 184 , 235 Pac. 476 , plaintiff sought to recover damages for loss of time, rental value of tools, also for loss of profits from a failure to complete contract to drill oil well.

1928In the case of Baker & Strawn v. Miller & Jones. 109 Okla. 184 , 235 Pac. 476 , plaintiff sought to recover damages for loss of time, rental value of tools, also for loss of profits from a failure to complete contract to drill oil well.