Legal Opinion

WeGo Perforators v. Hilligoss

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided November 17, 1964No. 40632PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Justice.

The defendant in error, hereafter referred to as plaintiff, was the owner and operator of an oil well. The plaintiff in error was a co-partnership engaged in operating a specialized oilfield service, and hereafter is referred to as defendant.

In the course of his operations, the plaintiff employed the defendant, admittedly an independent contractor, to perforate and “shoot” certain sand formations in the oil well. In the performance of these functions, the defendant used a primer cord made up of a high explosive encased in an aluminum tube about the size of a lead pencil in…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Clark v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1915
  2. Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. PriceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1950
  3. Independent - Eastern Torpedo Co. v. PriceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953
  4. Atex Const. Co. v. FarrowCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
  5. Shell Petroleum Corporation v. PerrinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Pacific Insurance Company of New York v. FrankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1969
  2. Holland v. Dolese Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
  3. Nye v. CoxSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1968
  4. Hertz Corporation v. Gaddis-Walker Electric Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
  5. Appeal of TurnerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1976

2 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