Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CARISTA v. VALUCK
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
Decided September 19, 2016No. Case 114,732Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRapp, J.
¶ 1 I concur in vacating the trial court judgment but dissent as to the grounds stated by Majority, as set forth herein:
¶ 2 Subsection 37(e) is a statutory recognition of the existence of a duty on the part of the pharmacist. The first question for determination is: Does a duty, recognized by law, exist on the part of Westminster, which requires that it conform to a standard of conduct so as to protect buyers of narcotic prescriptions, like Carista, against an unreasonable risk from an improper or dangerous use of the prescription? As stated in McClure v. Sunshine Furniture, 2012 OK CIV APP…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McCain v. Florida Power CorporationSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Henry E. McClanahanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
- Wofford v. Eastern State HospitalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
- Delbrel v. Doenges Bros. Ford, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
- Union Bank of Tucson, Arizona v. GriffinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.