Legal Opinion

Carter v. Wooley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided April 16, 1974No. 46027PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BARNES, Justice:

The question here is whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion relating to the payment, by his employer’s workmen’s compensation insurance carrier, Royal-Globe Insurance Company, or Royal Indemnity Company, of an attorney’s fee to his attorney. Appellant and his attorney, or law firm, will hereinafter be referred to as “plaintiff” and “B”, respectively, while the insurance company and its attorney, or law firm, will be referred to as “Royal” and “G”, respectively.

In this appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order of denial of said…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Associates Transports, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973
  2. Washington Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. HammettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
  3. Cole v. MorrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1966
  4. Wilson v. Pittsburgh B. & I. WorksSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  5. Cary v. Phoenix Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1910

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Transport Indemnity Company v. GarciaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Prettyman v. Halliburton Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
  4. County Workers Compensation Pool v. DavisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1991
  5. Stubblefield v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980

5 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