Legal Opinion
Mooney v. Mooney
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided May 20, 2003No. 96,014, 96,025PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSummers, J.
¶1 Our job here is to sort out competing claims between two brothers, each of whose land abuts the other's. We affirm the trial court's finding of an easement by implication, reverse its award of damages in division of a shop building as being contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, and affirm its denial of damages for a destroyed dog pen. The matter is remanded on the shop building issue.
T 2 Two brothers live as neighbors, and for many years shared a driveway for access to their respective homes. One brother improved the driveway and wanted the other to build his own. They disagreed…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Silk v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
- Story v. HefnerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1975
- Robert L. Wheeler, Inc. v. ScottSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1991
- Reddell v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
- Jones, Givens, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C. v. BergerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2002
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Head v. McCrackenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2004
- B-Star, Inc. v. Polyone Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
- James v. Tyson Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012
- VANGUARD ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. v. CurlerCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2008
- Vertex Holdings, LLC v. CrankeCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.