Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
American National Bank & Trust Co. of Sapulpa v. BIC Corp.
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
Decided May 3, 1994No. Nos. 80701, 81077Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHunter, Presiding Judge
I fully concur with the majority’s opinion in parts I-VI. I concur with the reasoning found in part VII, but I dissent from the majority’s order of remittitur of punitive damages because it is, in my opinion, based, not on the majority’s holding; not on the law; *427not on any issue raised by Appellant and not on the evidence.
In Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 1045, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991), the United States Supreme Court found that Alabama imposed a sufficiently definite and meaningful constraint on the fact-finders award of punitive damages because its Supreme…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. HaslipSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Christian v. American Home Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1978
- Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1991
- Timmons v. Royal Globe Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.