Legal Opinion

City of Hartshorne v. Carlomango

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 13, 1955No. 36711PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CORN, Justice.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence in permitting a dangerous condition to exist in a city sidewalk. The physical facts alleged to have created such condition, as disclosed by the pleadings and evidence, may be summarized in the following manner.

In Hartshorne, Oklahoma, one of the principal thoroughfares is a paved street designated as North 9th Street. A cement sidewalk 4 feet in width runs along the west side of the street, and plaintiff’s residence is located upon this side of the street.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. City of Woodward v. BowderSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  2. City of Norman v. SalleeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
  3. Grand Distributing Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
  4. Town of Okemah v. LindseySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1947
  5. City of Ardmore v. GriffinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Johnson v. WadeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
  2. Oliver v. Municipio de BayamónSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1963
  3. Williams v. City of BristowSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1960
  4. Hair v. WilsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1964
  5. Davis v. City of HenryettaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965

6 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