Legal Opinion
Shunkamolah v. Potter Delco
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided May 22, 1928No. 18169PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
REID, C.
This ease was originally ■brought by Elmer Potter, as next friend and for tbe benefit of Pay Potter, a minor, and upon judgment for plaintiff tbe case was appealed to this court, and reversed, as shown by tbe opinion in 106 Okla. 91, 233 Pac. 189.
After tbe reversal of tbe case, tbe plaintiff being of age, and married, the suit was prosecuted by second amended petition, in her own name of Pay Potter Delco. Upon a retrial, tbe plaintiff again got a judgment against the defendants, Joe and Margaret Sbunkamolab, from which tbe defendants appeal.
Tbe plaintiff alleged in ber second amended…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Colonial Refining Co. v. LathropSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Milliron v. DittmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. BerrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- City of Oklahoma City v. StewartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
- Pine Belt Lumber Co. v. RiggsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Cushing Refining & Gasoline Co. v. DeshanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- G. A. Nichols Co. v. LockhartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
- Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. AdkissonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Rein v. PattonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953
- Hunt v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1968
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.