company claim (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

company claim in Oklahoma

6 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1918–2007 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Gay v. Akingreen
okla · 1988 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007See Gay v. Akin, 1988 OK 150, ¶¶ 16-18 , 766 P.2d 985, 992-93 . 3 123 In granting judgment on the derivative claim, the Trial Court found that, at best, Beard had only established that any improper expenses had been repaid to the company and that a claim for any other allegedly improper expenses was barred by the statute of limitations.

2007See Gay v. Akin, 1988 OK 150, ¶¶ 16-18 , 766 P.2d 985, 992-93 . 3 123 In granting judgment on the derivative claim, the Trial Court found that, at best, Beard had only established that any improper expenses had been repaid to the company and that a claim for any other allegedly improper expenses was barred by the statute of limitations.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Oklahoma Company v. O'NEIL neutral
okla · 1958
1 sentence

1967Having determined that the decision of this Court, dated December, 1958, The Oklahoma Company v. O’Neil, et al., 333 P.2d 534 , was not constitutionally adopted, the mandate of this Court issued therein on January 6, 1959, is recalled and said decision is hereby vacated and set aside.

11967–1967
Moore v. Leigh-Head & Co. green
okla · 1915
2 sentences

1961He does not deny that these individuals are lawful members of the partnership, and, at the trial, finally abandoned his denial of, and defense against, all of said Company’s claim except the $8.81 shown on invoice No. 16818, supra, and the $9.89' shown on invoice No. 5272, supra. Since intervenors maintained this action as individuals doing business in the name of Magers’ creditor company, even if Macrory could not legally, by reason of his trusteeship, be a partner in said Company, this could have been “no consolation” to Magers, and could have availed him “in no way as a defense * * * Moore

1961He does not deny that these individuals are lawful members of the partnership, and, at the trial, finally abandoned his denial of, and defense against, all of said Company’s claim except the $8.81 shown on invoice No. 16818, supra, and the $9.89' shown on invoice No. 5272, supra. Since intervenors maintained this action as individuals doing business in the name of Magers’ creditor company, even if Macrory could not legally, by reason of his trusteeship, be a partner in said Company, this could have been “no consolation” to Magers, and could have availed him “in no way as a defense * * * Moore

11961–1961
Ringler v. Ringler neutral
md · 1929
1 sentence

1933Co. (Me.) 135 357, it is held: “Insurer cannot destroy vested rights of first beneficiary under life policy by waiving requirement of indorsement of change of beneficiary thereon. ” In the body of the opinion, it is said: “If we concede the rights of the company to waive its own rights, yet it would be a *165 strange doctrine which would hold that the company could destroy Tested rights of a third person by waiver of any right which the company might claim to possess.” In Ringler v. Ringer (Md.) 144 Atl. 221 , it is held: “Respective rights of beneficiaries under contract or policy of insuranc

11933–1933
Ryal v. State neutral
oklacrimapp · 1919
1 sentence

1929Ryal v. State, 16 Okla.

11929–1929
Agricultural Insurance v. Montague green
mich · 1878
1 sentence

1918Co. v. Montague, 38 Mich. 548 , 31 Am.

11918–1918

Where else courts name it

VA 75 (1981–2025) IL 42 (1888–2026) PA 35 (1891–2024) NY 27 (1875–2010) CA 27 (1890–2024) MO 18 (1897–2008) TX 17 (1902–2016) GA 16 (1895–2002) WA 15 (1947–2021) OH 13 (1895–2025) DE 12 (2016–2026) IN 10 (1897–2020) CO 10 (1908–2019) OR 9 (1922–2019) MI 9 (1902–2022) NC 9 (1932–2022) NH 8 (1958–2011) MA 8 (1944–2019) FL 7 (1892–2002) WI 6 (1936–2007) AL 6 (1950–2009) UT 6 (1944–2025) AZ 6 (1978–2007) WV 6 (1885–2001) OK 6 (1918–2007) MD 6 (1878–1985) KY 5 (1920–2020) RI 5 (1899–1984) AR 5 (1893–1995) NJ 5 (1896–2000) LA 5 (1931–1990) ID 5 (1873–2005) ME 5 (1975–2013) NM 4 (1974–2024) TN 4 (1941–2015) NV 4 (1975–2006) DC 3 (2003–2024) IA 3 (1895–1982) SC 3 (1936–1952) NE 3 (1895–1987) KS 3 (1898–1993) MS 2 (1907–2001) WY 2 (1976–2004) ND 2 (1893–1998)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check