Legal Opinion
Moneypenney v. Dawson
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided July 5, 2006No. 101,311PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLavender, J.
¶ 1 Plaintiff/Appellant, Dewayne Money-penney (Plaintiff) filed a Petition (Petition 2) for monetary relief against Defendant/Appel-lee, Richard E. Dawson (Defendant) claiming damage to his residential real property was caused by water flowing onto Plaintiffs lot by virtue of Defendant having altered the natural water drainage or flow on the latter’s own lot. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss asserting the suit was time-barred because the two year statute of limitations found at 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3) had expired prior to the filing of Petition 2. 1 The trial court sustained the motion and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Great Plains Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. DabneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- City of Ardmore v. OrrSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- N.C. Corff Partnership, Ltd. v. OXY USA, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1996
- Harper-Turner Oil Company v. BridgeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1957
- Commercial Drilling Co. v. KennedySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. GrantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007
- TUCKER v. THE COCHRAN FIRM-CRIMINAL DEFENSE BIRMINGHAM L.L.C.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2014
- City of Broken Arrow v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011
- Okla. Heritage Bank v. Ward (In re Ward)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2018
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.