Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Boatsman v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc.

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided June 22, 2001No. 93,619Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I fully concur in the majority's opinion until Paragraph 24. On this issue, considering the ample award of $41,856.86 in compensatory damages, the jury's award of $58,-143.14 1 in exemplary damages strikes me as manifestly unreasonable, grossly excessive, likely the product of the jury's sympathy or prejudice, and "larger than reason dictates to be necessary to deter such conduct in this defendant and others similarly situated." Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 1991 OK 127, ¶ 54, 824 P.2d 1105, 1116; Chandler v. Denton, 1987 OK 38, ¶ 30, 741 P.2d 855,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1991
  2. Timmons v. Royal Globe Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
  3. Chandler v. DentonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
  4. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Sapulpa v. BIC Corp.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1994
  5. Scribner v. Hillcrest Medical CenterCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API