Legal Opinion

City of Oklahoma City v. Pool

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 27, 1978No. 51045PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

IRWIN, Justice.

The single issue presented is the propriety of the trial judge’s order, affirmed by the Industrial Court en banc, charging costs of deposing claimant’s physician against petitioner, the City of Oklahoma City, hereinafter referred to as respondent. State Industrial Court Rule 13, provides:

“The cost of taking the deposition will be borne by the deposing party except where the Court finds that the objection 'o the deposing party’s medical report was dilatory or unnecessary. If the Court should so find, it may assess the cost of the deposition to the objecting party.”

Claim for…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Choctaw Portland Cement Co. v. LambSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
  2. Wilkerson Chevrolet, Inc. v. MackeySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Blue Bell, Inc. v. SpeakmanCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API