Legal Opinion · Dissent

Truelock v. City of Del City

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 30, 1998No. 87875Published

1DissentSimms, J.

¶ 1 I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion insofar as it holds that the Truelocks are precluded from recovering attorney’s fees in addition to their $25,000 property damage award. I believe the Court’s decision is erroneous and I fear it will cause significant and unwarranted hardships to deserving parties who have been injured by governmental negligence through no fault of their own.

¶ 2 The issue is not so simple and uncomplicated as the Court dismissively finds it to be. Huff v. State, 1988 OK 1998, 764 P.2d 183, is not controlling here and, in my opinion, the Court’s…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hutto v. FinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Lienhard v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  3. Thayer v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
  4. Fleet v. Sanguine, Ltd.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
  5. Rout v. Crescent Public Works AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API