Legal Opinion
Carter v. Rubrecht
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided December 24, 1940No. 29412PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WELCH, V. C. J.
The question here presented is whether under the existing facts the defendant was entitled to be allowed an attorney’s fee under section 9524, O. S. 1931, 15 Okla. St. Ann. § 268.
That section provides in effect that in an action brought to recover the penalties imposed by statute for usury, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to be allowed an attorney’s fee to be taxed as costs against the losing party.
Essential facts are that plaintiff commenced an action to recover such usury penalty; the defendant answered by general and specific denials; thereafter, and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Johnston v. American Finance CorporationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
- Bank of Buffalo v. VennSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- National Credit Co. v. FranklinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Richardson v. BarnhartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
- Thorne v. MillikenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Howell Petroleum Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Samson Resources Company, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1978
- Wieland v. Danner Auto Supply, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- Ghk Exploration Company, an Oklahoma Partnership v. Tenneco Oil Company, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
- Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. North American Van LinesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.