Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 18, 1986No. 62204Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
DOOLIN, Vice Chief Justice,
concurring in Part II, dissenting to Part I.
The trial court’s ruling undoubtedly represents the traditional position of the Oklahoma Bar, when it requires compliance with the non-claim statute of this State, 58 O.S.1981, § 331, et seq. According to this requirement, if the claim for last illness be not presented within the time limit of the notice section, § 331 “it is barred forever.”
It is the position of this Claimant that the expenses of last illness are exceptions to the non-claim statutes.
We start with 58 O.S.1981, § 594 which states:
“The executor or…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1968
- Cate v. Archon Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- Golden Gate Undertaking Co. v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma County Excise BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.