Worms v. Burgess
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
ROMANG, Judge:
This is an appeal from the granting of a Rule 13 motion for judgment where facts are not controverted (Summary Judgment).
Plaintiff-Appellants (Optionee) are the successors in interest to the holder of an option contract 1 with the Defendant-Ap-pellees (Optionor). Under the terms of the option contract if the Optionee “elects to exercise the option to purchase . .. [described real property, the Optionor] shall be notified by registered mail on or before August 21,1977, of the intention to so exercise said option.” The Optionee dispatched its notice on August 20th but said notice…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Palo Alto Town & Country Village, Inc. v. Bbtc CompanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Morrison v. ThoelkeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1963
- Walker v. Telex Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1978
- Dick v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1949
- McAlister v. KeleinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
3Cited by8 opinions
- Frank Huizar v. Tom CareyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Osprey L.L.C v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
- University Emergency Medicine Foundation v. Rapier Investments, Ltd and Medical Business Systems, IncCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- United States v. TurleyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
- Apc Operating Partnership v. Dale G. MacKey and Evelyn C. MacKey and Darrell E. MacKey and Lovell H. MacKeyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.