Fleet v. Sanguine, Ltd.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
OPALA, Justice.
Two issues are presented by defendant Sanguine Ltd.’s [Sanguine’s or the operator’s] appeal from a postjudgment order: 1 (1) Did the trial court err by adding prejudgment interest as a penalty after Plaintiffs-Appellees [the mineral owners] had accepted the operator’s § 1101 2 offer of judgment? and (2) Should the trial court’s memorialized judgment be corrected to make it conformable to the record? We answer both questions in the affirmative.
One additional issue is presented by the mineral owners’ counter-appeal: Were auditing costs in the parallel ancillary proceeding for…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Chamberlin v. ChamberlinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986
- Silver v. SlusherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Hadnot v. ShawSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Chandler v. DentonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
- Holbert v. EcheverriaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Gilmore v. WeatherfordCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2012
- Spencer v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- Lewis v. Sac & Fox Tribe of Oklahoma Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
- Okland Oil Company v. Conoco Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- Green Bay Packaging v. Preferred Packaging, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.