Legal Opinion
Town of Mannford v. Watson
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided May 12, 1964No. 40250PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JACKSON, Justice.
Plaintiffs in the trial court, Watson, Wheeler and Wheeler, brought this action upon an alleged express oral contract for the recovery of a contingent attorney fee for representing the defendant Town of Mannford in negotiations with the Corps of Engineers for the United States Government. The Town of Mannford in its answer and testimony admitted the plaintiffs had performed services for the Town but alleged that their oral contract called for “cash fees” on a “piece-work” or “as work done” basis. Plaintiffs sought judgment upon their alleged “contingent fee” contract in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hazelton v. SheckellsSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. ThurmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
- City of Barnsdall v. CurnuttSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1945
- Callahan v. Cowley RiddleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
- Vogt Bros. Manufacturing Co. v. StansburyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1957
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Landsing Diversified Properties-II v. First National Bank & Trust Co. (In re Western Real Estate Fund, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- In Re Western Real Estate Fund, Inc., Debtors. Landsing Diversified Properties-Ii v. The First National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa v. Kevin M. Abel Abel & Busch, Inc., Third-Party-Defendants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
- Landsing Diversified Properties-II v. First National Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- McNeill v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1998
- McNeill v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1998