Brickner v. Gooden

89 Citing cases

  1. Edwards v. McKee

    76 P.3d 73 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003)   Cited 12 times

    ¶ 6 Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine what law applied, whether Kansas law as the law of the place of the accident, or Oklahoma law as the law of the forum with a significant relationship to Defendants' domicile, residence and place of incorporation. Brickner v. Gooden, 1974 OK 91, 525 P.2d 632. On consideration of the arguments, the trial court held that Kansas law controlled, and instructed the jury accordingly. ¶ 7 On consideration of the evidence, the jury returned its verdict, adjudicating Plaintiff and Defendants each 50% negligent, thereby denying Plaintiff recovery according to Kansas law. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied, and Plaintiff appeals.

  2. Hawk Enters., Inc. v. Cash Am. Int'l, Inc.

    282 P.3d 786 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012)   Cited 15 times
    In Hawk Enterprises, Inc., when evaluating a choice-of-law provision in a franchise agreement, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals concluded that Oklahoma law rather than Texas law applied to a claim of tortious interference of the franchise agreement.

    “[T]he rights and liabilities of parties with respect to a particular issue in tort shall be determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties.” Brickner v. Gooden, 1974 OK 91, ¶ 23, 525 P.2d 632, 637. Following the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, the Supreme Court in Brickner identified the contacts to be considered as factors when determining which state's law would apply:

  3. Hawk Enters., Inc. v. Cash America Int'l, Inc.

    2012 OK Civ. App. 66 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012)

    "[T]he rights and liabilities of parties with respect to a particular issue in tort shall be determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties." Brickner v. Gooden, 1974 OK 91, ¶ 23, 525 P.2d 632, 637. Following the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, the Supreme Court in Brickner identified the contacts to be considered as factors when determining which state's law would apply:

  4. Patten v. GMC, Chevrolet Motor Div.

    699 F. Supp. 1500 (W.D. Okla. 1987)   Cited 12 times
    Finding place of conduct factor of less importance where conduct causing the injury occurred in many different states

    In other words, none of the parties maintain that any other states mentioned above, which have a relationship to the parties and the occurrence involved in this case, have the most significant such relationship to any of the issues herein. See generally Brickner v. Gooden, 525 P.2d 632 (Okla. 1974); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 (1969). Plaintiffs assert that Oklahoma substantive products liability law and its law with respect to the use of presumptions, reduction of damages based upon comparative fault and survivorship benefits applies.

  5. Huddleston v. John Christner Trucking, LLC

    Case No. 17-CV-549-GKF-FHM (N.D. Okla. Jan. 30, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Martin v. Gray, 385 P.3d 64, 67 (Okla. 2016) (quoting Brickner v. Gooden, 525 P.2d 632, 637 (Okla. 1974)). a. The alleged injury occurred in California.

  6. Graves v. Mazda Motor Corporation

    598 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (W.D. Okla. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    The parties are invited to give these issues more detailed treatment in their trial briefs. The competing choice of law analyses proposed by the parties predominantly rely, as might be expected, on the Oklahoma Supreme Court's seminal decision in Brickner v. Gooden, 525 P.2d 632 (Okla. 1974), and, to a lesser extent, on the more recent decision in Ysbrand v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 81 P.3d 618 (Okla. 2003). The main significance of the Ysbrand decision, at least for present purposes, is that it quotes at length the overarching choice of law principles set forth in Section 6 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law (herein: Restatement).

  7. Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc.

    917 F.2d 1507 (10th Cir. 1990)   Cited 547 times
    Holding that the court of appeals "need not ‘sift through’ the record to find [the appellant’s] evidence" in the absence of citations in the appellant’s brief

    Oklahoma law adopts the "most significant relationship" test. See Brickner v. Gooden, 525 P.2d 632 (Okla. 1974). Under this test, the district court must consider the following general principles in deciding which state's law is applicable to a particular issue:

  8. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. v. UOP, Inc.

    861 F.2d 1197 (10th Cir. 1988)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that when a party is aware of the jury's failure to answer an interrogatory and does not object, nor request the district court to resubmit the interrogatory to the jury, the party has waived his right to assert the issue on appeal

    The Oklahoma Supreme Court has adopted the "most significant relationship" test in determining which governing law is most appropriate in resolving rights and liabilities of parties with respect to issues in tort. Brickner v. Gooden, 525 P.2d 632, 637 (Okla. 1974); see also Mills v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 827 F.2d 1418, 1420 (10th Cir. 1987) (recognizing Oklahoma's choice-of-law test); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, § 145 (1971). The factors to be considered in applying the test are: "(1) the place where the injury occurred, (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (4) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties occurred."

  9. Mills v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    827 F.2d 1418 (10th Cir. 1987)   Cited 4 times
    Recognizing Oklahoma's choice-of-law test

    Because we conclude that the trial court correctly applied Oklahoma law, we need not determine whether Flagg or Price should be applied retroactively. In response to State Farm's summary judgment motion, the district court properly determined the immunity conflicts question by applying Oklahoma's "most significant relationship" choice-of-law test, see White v. White, 618 P.2d 921, 924 (Okl. 1980); Brickner v. Gooden, 525 P.2d 632, 637 (Okl. 1974), and decided that "Oklahoma has more significant contacts with the marital relationship than Texas or Kansas." Rec., vol. I, at 81.

  10. Poinsett v. Life Ins. Co. of New Am.

    No. CIV-21-1205-F (W.D. Okla. Sep. 20, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    As the choice-of-law provision does not apply to the bad faith claim, the choice of law applicable to the claim is the “most significant relationship” test adopted in Brickner v. Gooden, 525 P.2d 632 (Okla. 1974). See, Martin, 385 P.3d at 67.