Legal Opinion
Minie v. Hudson
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided March 11, 1997No. 86211PublishedCited by 102 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KAUGER, Chief Justice:
Two questions are presented on certiorari: 1) whether the verbal notice of claim communicated to the City was valid under the Tort Claims Act; and 2) whether, once the County began to clear Hudson’s drainage system, it had a duty to complete the job with due care. We find that: 1) the clear and mandatory language of 51 O.S.Supp.1992 § 156(D) 1 requires that notice of a claim against a political subdivision be presented in writing; and 2) the County had a duty to complete its work, undertaken pursuant to contract, with reasonable care and in a non-negligent manner.
FACTS
The…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Fuller v. OdomSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
- Wofford v. Eastern State HospitalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
- Carris v. John R. Thomas & Associates, P.C.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- Roach v. Atlas Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Darnell v. Chrysler Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by102 opinions
- Keating v. EdmondsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2001
- Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
- Spencer v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- McClure v. ConocoPhillips Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
- Pellegrino v. State, Ex Rel. Cameron University, Ex Rel. Board of RegentsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
97 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.