Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hinson v. Cameron

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 9, 1987No. 64159Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKauger, Justice

with whom, DOOLIN, Chief Justice, and WILSON, Justice, join concurring in part and dissenting in part.

There are three things which particularly trouble me about the disposition of this case by the affirmance of the entry of summary judgment. The first is the attempt to distinguish Hall v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 713 P.2d 1027, 1031 (Okla.1986), based on the majority’s status-based approach which characterizes the relationship at issue as “master-servant” as opposed to the “principal-agent” analysis utilized in Hall. Under Oklahoma’s revised at-will doctrine as promulgated in Hall, I see no…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue ShieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Thompson v. St. Regis Paper CompanyWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital CenterIllinois Supreme Court · 1987

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API