Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tomlinson v. Bailey

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 1, 1954No. 35945Published

1DissentWelch, Justice

I respectfully dissent to that portion of the majority opinion which allows recovery of exemplary damages or punitive damages in this case. I do not think that the record justifies the conclusion stated in the majority opinion “that lessee was motivated by oppression or malice”. I think rather that the lessee was motivated by a desire, and was making effort, to dispose of the salt water.

It seems there was substantially more salt water here involved than is usually encountered in drilling operations of this size, but I think when the lessee has compensated plaintiff in full for all actual…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Oden v. RussellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
  2. Tinker v. ScharnhorstSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API