Legal Opinion

Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority v. Lindauer

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided April 15, 1975No. 46506PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAVENDER, Justice:

Detailing of facts, other than those above and those later discussed, is not necessary for the determination of this appeal.

Appellant owners’ petition in error contains three grounds for reversal: (1) prejudicial remarks of condemnor’s counsel in its closing argument to the jury, (2) orders by trial judge during trial causing the jury to be prejudiced against owners, and (3) refusal of trial judge to allow recovery by owners of their expert witness expense as cost in the case.

No argument or reference is made in appellants’ brief as to any prejudicial remarks of opposing…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Grand River Dam Authority v. JarvisCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1942
  2. Sarkeys v. HaasSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965
  3. Kelly v. Oklahoma Turnpike AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1954
  4. Hayward v. GinnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1957
  5. Layton v. PurcellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1954

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. City National Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City v. OwensSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
  2. Rout v. Crescent Public Works AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
  3. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. New Life Pentecostal Church of JenksSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
  4. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. NewSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
  5. Andress v. BowlbySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989

10 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