Sautbine v. Keller
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1DissentBlackbird, Justice
I cannot concur in the Majority opinion. The obvious basis for said opinion’s statement that the theory of estoppel by judgment requires no consideration, in view of plaintiffs’ declaration that they do not rely on it, is found on page 8 of the brief of defendants in error, and reads as follows:
“Despite the straw man which plaintiffs in error set up under Proposition II of their initial brief, defendants in error do not assert that Willis G. Sautbine, Inc., is barred by the doctrine of estoppel by judgment.”
Despite the quoted statement on page 11 of the same brief, plaintiffs set forth a…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Charles E. Harding Co. v. HardingIllinois Supreme Court · 1933
- Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co.California Supreme Court · 1949
- Litchfield v. Goodnow's AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- In re the Accounting of RafteryNew York Court of Appeals · 1956
- Patterson v. SaundersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1953
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.