prerequisite claim in Oklahoma

2004Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25 , 94 S.Ct. 188 , 38 L.Ed.2d 183 (1973).

2004Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25 , 94 S.Ct. 188 , 38 L.Ed.2d 183 (1973).

1990Second, neither Kirkland v. General Motors Corporation, 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla.1974) nor our subsequent decisions require a specific kind of damages as a prerequisite to a claim of manufacturers’ products liability nor limit damages recoverable under the theory of manufacturers’ products liability.

1990Second, neither Kirkland v. General Motors Corporation, 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974) nor our subsequent decisions require a specific kind of damages as a prerequisite to a claim of manufacturers' products liability nor limit damages recoverable under the theory of manufacturers' products liability. *657 In June, 1979, plaintiffs purchased the subject mobile home for $22,800.00.

1958After a forfeiture of an appearance bond, the court may vacate the for *956 feiture under the provisions of 22 O.S.1951 § 1108 but a prerequisite of such violation is that the defendant appear and “satisfactorily excuse his neglect.” In the case of State v. Wright, 193 Okl. 383 , 143 P.2d 801, 805 , the trial court vacated the forfeiture, and this court pointed out that, “the application * * * to set aside the forfeiture, under said statute, is addressed to the discretion of the court * * * The discretion referred to is necessarily a sound judicial and not an arbitrary one.” The rule remains t

1958After a forfeiture of an appearance bond, the court may vacate the for *956 feiture under the provisions of 22 O.S.1951 § 1108 but a prerequisite of such violation is that the defendant appear and “satisfactorily excuse his neglect.” In the case of State v. Wright, 193 Okl. 383 , 143 P.2d 801, 805 , the trial court vacated the forfeiture, and this court pointed out that, “the application * * * to set aside the forfeiture, under said statute, is addressed to the discretion of the court * * * The discretion referred to is necessarily a sound judicial and not an arbitrary one.” The rule remains t

1939Prior to our adoption of this section from Kansas the Supreme Court of that state held, in Stewart et al. v. Scully, 46 Kan. 491 , 26 P. 957 , that: “Where a defendant applies to have a judgment which was rendered without other service than by publication opened up, and that he be permitted to make a defense, he may, in the discretion of the court, be required to pay all costs before his application will oe granted; but a formal offer, by answer or otherwise, to pay costs is not a prerequisite to the hearing or granting of the application.” Recognizing that the statute does not require a forma