Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bumgarner v. Pruitt

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 20, 1966No. 41463Published

1DissentHalley, Chief Justice

I cannot concur in the majority opinion. It seems to me that the result reached there is entirely inconsistent with our views as set forth in other decisions.

We have heretofore committed ourselves to the rule that restrictions on the use of real property must be strictly construed and will not be extended on the one hand or limited on the other, but strictly enforced in a proper case. See Cooke v. Kinkead, 179 Okl. 147, 64 P.2d 682; Test Oil Co. v. La Tourette, 19 Okl. 214, 91 P. 1025, and Mattson v. Fezler, 202 Okl. 589, 216 P.2d 275.

We have also held that the provisions of a restrictive…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Test Oil Co. v. LaTouretteSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1907
  2. Cooke v. KinkeadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  3. West Nichols Hills Presbyterian Church v. FolksSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1954
  4. Mattson v. FezlerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1949
  5. Trotter v. LoumSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1958

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