Legal Opinion

Oklahoma, K. & M. R. Co. v. Daniel

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 12, 1923No. 11296PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

MANET, O.

The defendant in error, plaintiff below, in liis petition seeks (o recover on a dual theory. In the third paragraph of his petition, he alleges:

“That the motorman in charge and control of said motor car, and employed by the said defendant for the purpose of operating said motor car, did, wantonly, negligently, and willfully, and without regard to the safety of plaintiff, cause one sharp blast of the whistle to be blown which frightened plaintiff’s horse, making it lunge and run away, jerking plaintiff down and causing him to fall on his left hip and shoulder.”

In the fifth…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. WolfSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  2. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. BoushSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
  3. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. ZirkleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  4. Lusk v. WilkesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  5. Chicago, R.I. P. R. Co. v. HineSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. WainscottSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  2. Sheridan v. Deep Rock Oil CorporationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API