Browning v. Ray

11 Citing cases

  1. West v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Pawnee Cnty.

    2011 OK 104 (Okla. 2012)   Cited 9 times
    Explaining Oklahoma law only โ€œsupports the granting of a new trialโ€ where a jury award is โ€œbeyond all measure unreasonable and outrageousโ€

    Hornstein v. Yarrington, 1925 OK 440, ยถ 5, 237 P. 73. Proving the precise amount of such damages is, by their very nature, almost impossible. Browning v. Ray, 1968 OK 52, ยถ 13, 440 P.2d 721. Where it is plainly apparent from the injury alone that the injured person must of necessity undergo pain and suffering, the jury may infer that fact from the injury itself. Blanke v. Alexander, 152 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.1998); Edwards v. Chandler, 1957 OK 45, ยถ 5, 308 P.2d 295. There is no absolute standard to measure damages.

  2. West v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Pawnee Cnty.

    2011 OK 104 (Okla. 2011)

    Hornstein v. Yarrington, 1925 OK 440, ยถ5, 237 P. 73. Proving the precise amount of such damages is, by their very nature, almost impossible. Browning v. Ray, 1968 OK 52, ยถ13, 440 P.2d 721. Where it is plainly apparent from the injury alone that the injured person must of necessity undergo pain and suffering, the jury may infer that fact from the injury itself. Blanke v. Alexander, 152 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 1998); Edwards v. Chandler, 1957 OK 45, ยถ5, 308 P.2d 295. There is no absolute standard to measure damages.

  3. Kitchens v. Bryan County Nat. Bank

    825 F.2d 248 (10th Cir. 1987)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that federal rules govern sufficiency of service in diversity cases

    We find no merit in this contention. In Browning v. Ray, 440 P.2d 721 (Okl. 1968), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that although the plaintiff must prove specific damages such as loss of earnings or profits from a business, general damages for injury to reputation and emotional or mental distress may be awarded assuming the essential elements of malicious prosecution are established. Kitchens adequately established both his specific damages and the essential elements of his case.

  4. Brown v. USA Truck, Inc.

    NO. CIV-11-856-D (W.D. Okla. Sep. 11, 2013)

    "Proving the precise amount of such damages is, by their very nature, almost impossible." West, 273 P.3d at 36 n. 17 (citing Browning v. Ray, 440 P.2d 721 (Okla. 1968)). When there is no identifiable measure of damages, they are properly determined by the trier of fact according to "the judgment and opinion of a reasonable person."

  5. Greenberg v. Wolfberg

    1994 OK 147 (Okla. 1995)   Cited 82 times
    Holding in a malicious prosecution case where the prior suit was a civil suit that "[d]ismissal without prejudice is not a termination favorable to the malicious-prosecution plaintiff."

    See also 12 O.S. 1991 ยง 2013[ 12-2013] for Oklahoma's statutory treatment of counterclaims.Reeves v. Agee, Okla., 769 P.2d 745, 752 (1989); Young v. First State Bank, Watonga, Okla., 628 P.2d 707, 709 (1981); Page v. Rose, Okla., 546 P.2d 617, 620 (1976); Browning v. Ray, Okla., 440 P.2d 721, 724 (1968); Towne v. Martin, 196 Okla. 510, 166 P.2d 98, 100 (1945); Sawyer v. Shick, 30 Okla. 353, 120 P. 581, 582 (1911). While earlier components of the predicate may serve as an element's proof in a later proceeding, each individual suit must satisfy the critical elements of (a) initiation by the malicious-prosecution defendant, (b) termination favorable to the malicious-prosecution plaintiff and (c) lack of probable cause.

  6. First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. v. Arles

    1991 OK 78 (Okla. 1991)   Cited 8 times

    Nguyen v. State, 772 P.2d 401, 403 (Okla. Cr. 1989); 22 O.S. 1981 ยง 991c[ 22-991c]. We recognize that an indirect contempt action is civil in nature and not governed by the criminal law, Browning v. Ray, 440 P.2d 721, 725 (Okla. 1968). However, the proceedings appear analogous in considering the appealability of an order.

  7. Young v. First State Bank, Watonga

    1981 OK 53 (Okla. 1981)   Cited 37 times
    In Young, the plaintiff in the original action settled a civil lawsuit after receiving full monetary satisfaction from one of the defendants.

    Bank claims that Young's evidence of damages was wholly speculative and, as such was improperly admitted and insufficient to support the verdict. Young relies on Browning v. Ray, Okla., 440 P.2d 721, 724 (1958), where we said: ". . . general damages for injury to reputation and emotional or mental distress, the precise amount of which by their very nature is almost impossible of proof and which damages almost certainly result if one has been maliciously prosecuted, may be awarded if plaintiff has established the other essential elements of an action for malicious prosecution."

  8. Park v. Security Bank and Trust Company

    1973 OK 72 (Okla. 1973)   Cited 43 times
    In Park v. Security Bank & Trust Co., 512 P.2d 113, 119 (Okla.1973), we held that to show malice in a malicious prosecution claim, the defendant must have acted because of ill-will or hatred, or willfully in a wanton manner.

    Owing to the special nature of damages plaintiff claimed for shame, embarrassment and humiliation, which the law leaves largely to the jury's common sense, judgment and/or discretion, without a definite yard stick, or rule of measurement, to go by, this Court is virtually restricted to merely ascertaining if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the jury's verdict. John A. Brown Company v. Shelton, Okla., 391 P.2d 259. Also see Browning v. Ray, Okla., 440 P.2d 721. We conclude there is such evidence to support the verdict.

  9. Garroutte v. Garroutte

    1969 OK 91 (Okla. 1969)   Cited 3 times

    Willful disobedience of an order made by a court in this state not committed in presence of the court is an indirect contempt. Browning v. Ray, Okla., 440 P.2d 721; Seifried v. State ex rel. Bash, 184 Okla. 299, 86 P.2d 1008. The mentioned terms of the trial court's order were not complied with by defendant. This poses the issue whether, upon showing of defendant's failure to discharge the obligation imposed by the court's order, defendant was guilty of such conduct as constituted willful disobedience for which punishment should be ordered for the purpose of enforcement?

  10. Moore v. Target Stores, Inc.

    571 P.2d 1236 (Okla. Civ. App. 1977)   Cited 12 times

    The jury may award and plaintiff correctly recover for injuries such as emotional or mental distress and injury to reputation which necessarily resulted from the defendants' wrongful acts, once the plaintiff has established the essential elements of a malicious prosecution action. Browning v. Ray, 440 P.2d 721 (Okla. 1968); Restatement of the Law, Torts, ยง 670. Exemplary damages may be awarded against Target for the act of his agent even though the principal did not personally participate in or ratify the act. Kurn v. Radencic, 193 Okla. 126, 141 P.2d 580 (1943).