Legal Opinion

E. Donald Steinbrugge v. John S. Haddock and Alma J. Haddock, as of the Estate of Marshall Haddock, Jr., Deceased

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided July 26, 1960No. 6279_1PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Steinbrugge brought this diversity suit to rescind six purchases of Oklahoma oil and gas interests from ap-pellees, the Haddocks, on the grounds that the Haddocks’ agent in the transactions, Kunsman, had breached fiducial duties owed by him to Steinbrugge. More, particularly, appellant contends that in each of the six transactions, Kunsman was acting as his agent or at least in some fiducial capacity, giving rise to strict duties to disclose to him all material facts, e. g., that Kunsman was also the Haddocks’ agent, and the amount of Kunsman’s commissions on…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Doheny v. . LacyNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. Vargas v. Esquire, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1948
  3. Lewis v. SchaferSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  4. Derdyn v. LowSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  5. Hivick v. UrschelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Quinlan v. Koch Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
  2. Bartlett-Collins Co. v. Surinam Navigation Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1967
  3. Famous Knitwear Corporation v. Drug Fair, Inc., Famous Knitwear Corporation v. Drug Fair, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1974
  4. Butler v. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1969
  5. United Insurance Co. of America v. B. W. Rudy, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1967

10 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