Legal Opinion
Foster v. Rose
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided December 4, 1951No. 33958PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HALLEY, V. C. J.
Ted Foster, executor of the estate of Cleveland L. Rose, deceased, as plaintiff, alleged in his petition that Harry Rose, Rollie D. Rose, and Ben N. Hatcher had concealed, embezzled, smuggled, conveyed, or disposed of certain money which belonged to Cleveland L. Rose in his lifetime, and sought to recover under the provisions of sec. 292, 58 O.S. 1941, providing for the recovery by decedent’s legal representative of double the value of money or other property wrongfully taken or withheld. The parties occupy the same positions here as they did in the lower court, so will be…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Leadenham's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Fouts v. NanceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Warner, Etc., Admrs. v. Keiser, Etc., Exrs.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1931
- Sauls v. WhitmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Sands v. DildineSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
3Cited by7 opinions
- Larman v. LarmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
- Matter of Estate of StinchcombSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
- Estate of Estes v. KramerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
- McSpadden v. MahoneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
- Cluck v. FordCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2006
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.