Legal Opinion
Benton v. Ortenberger
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided May 15, 1962No. 38841PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Per curiam
This action was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County for damages for conversion of personal property. At the close of the trial the defendants’ motion for directed verdict was sustained and judgment rendered accordingly. An appeal has been prosecuted to this court by the plaintiffs from that judgment.
In presenting their argument that the trial court erred in directing verdict for defendants, the plaintiffs rely on the rule of law which defines conversion, and cite Aylesbury Mercantile Co. v. Fitch, 22 Okl. 475, 99 P. 1089, 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 573; First National Bank of McCloud…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Aylesbury Mercantile Co. v. FitchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Wilson Motor Co. v. DunnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Davis v. HoweSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Champlin Refining Co. v. Aladdin Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
- George W. Brown & Sons State Bank v. PolenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Shebester v. Triple Crown InsurersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- In the Matter of Fashion Optical, Ltd., Bankrupt. Joe Steele, Trustee v. Dr. Charles J. GebetsbergerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1981
- Cowles v. Dow Keith Oil & Gas, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985
- Brown v. Oklahoma State Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Teleco, Inc., a Corporation v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1975
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.