Legal Opinion
Mayo Hotel Co. v. Danciger
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided April 1, 1930No. 19156PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HALL, C.
This action was instituted by Jack Danciger, defendant in error, and who will be hereinafter designated as plaintiff, against the Mayo Hotel Company, a corporation, the plaintiff in error, and hereinafter designated as defendant, to recover both compensatory and exemplary damages against the defendant, said hotel company, because of certain personal injuries which he received at the hands of one of the servants of the hotel company while plaintiff was a guest of defendant’s hotel. The material facts are as follows:
The defendant operated and operates the Mayo Hotel in Tulsa, Okla. On…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- De Wolf v. . FordNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
- Pullman Palace Car Co. v. LawrenceMississippi Supreme Court · 1897
- Pinkerton v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Ft. Smith W. R. Co. v. FordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Clancy v. BarkerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Dayton Hudson Corp. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
- Buck v. Del City Apartments, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
- Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
- Russell-Lock Super-Service, Inc. v. VaughnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.