Funk v. Anderson-Rooney Operating Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
IRWIN, Justice.
Plaintiffs in error, herein designated as plaintiffs, commenced proceedings against defendants in error, referred to as defendants, to recover damages for breach of an oral contract to lease office space for a term of three years. The trial court found that the oral contract relied upon by plaintiffs was in violation of the Statute of Frauds and that the evidence on the question of damages was too vague, uncertain and speculative to become the basis for a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and sustained defendants’ motion for a directed verdict. Plaintiffs appeal from the order…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lacy v. WozencraftSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
- Sisler v. WhittenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1964
- B. F. C. Morris Co. v. MasonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- McMonigle v. PoorhorseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- McFarland v. T. W. Lanier Bro.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gray v. KohlhaseCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
- Chalfant v. TubbDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2006
- CTI SERVICES LLC v. HaremzaDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2011