Legal Opinion
Natkin & Co. v. Midwesco, Inc.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 2, 1993No. 71976PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LAVENDER, Vice Chief Judge.
The only viable question presented for our review is whether Appellee was entitled to an award of attorneys fees under 12 O.S.1981 § 936 although the proceeding was brought for confirmation of the “arbitration award” under 15 O.S.1991 § 801 et seq. on a motion for summary judgment. We find that Appellee was entitled to attorneys’ fees.
FACTS
Appellant, Midwesco, Inc. (Midwesco) was the subcontractor for the mechanical and electrical work on the Tulsa Resource Recovery Facility. Midwesco retained Ap-pellee, Natkin & Company (Natkin) to install the station piping for…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Chamberlin v. ChamberlinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986
- Moses v. HoebelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
- Burrows Construction Co. v. Independent School District No. 2Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- Garner v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
- City of Yukon v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 2055Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Whitehorse v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- GRP of Texas, Inc. v. Eateries, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2001
- State Ex Rel. State Insurance Fund v. JOA, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Public Service Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
- State Ex Rel. State Insurance Fund v. Great Plains Care Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003