Legal Opinion
Antonio v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided April 26, 1966No. 40701PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HALLEY, Chief Justice.
There is involved here an action to recover damages for trespass to real estate. Parties will be referred to as they appeared, in the trial court.
The greater portion of the facts are undisputed. The undisputed facts are as follows : Sol Kamenesky, Inc., hereinafter referred to as “Kamenesky”, is the fee owner of real property legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 .and S, Block 68, Original Townsite of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
On June 18, 1952, Kamenesky by ground lease with the defendant General Outdoor Advertising Co., hereinafter referred to as “General”, leased space to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Meixner v. BueckslerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Gedekoh v. Peoples Natural Gas Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- D. W. L., Inc. v. Goodner-Van Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1962
- Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. MerchantSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1962
- First State Bank of Noble v. McKiddySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nahno-Lopez v. HouserCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
- Butler v. PollardCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986
- Leroy Butler, Louie Butler and Alvin Butler v. Richard Pollard as Administrator of Estate of Olen Pollard, Deceased James H. Mashburn, William (Sonny) Coffman, and David Lundry as Administrator of the Estate of Bobby Lundry, Deceased, Leroy Butler, Louie Butler, and Alvin Butler v. Board of County Commissioners of McCurtain County, State of Oklahoma, and Jess PriceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986
- Nahno-Lopez v. HouserCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010