Lockhart v. Loosen
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1DissentOp Ala, Justice
¶ 1 Concluding that the wife’s claim against her husband’s infection-bearing paramour is an actionable tort, the court reverses the nisi prius dismissal order and remands the cause for further proceedings. I recede from today’s pronouncement.
I
¶ 2 THE TRIAL JUDGE’S DECISION FOR THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON A THEORY NOT URGED AT NISI PRIUS.¶ 3 Every trial judge’s decision comes to a court of review clothed with a presumption of correctness. If supported by law and evidence, the nisi prius judgment will be affirmed even if it was based on an incorrect theory and neither party tendered…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. EakinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- Bivins v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Memorial HospitalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Getty Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Dayton Hudson Corp. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.