Haco Drilling Co. v. Hammer

6 Citing cases

  1. Cleveland v. Dyn-A-Mite Pest Control

    57 P.3d 119 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002)   Cited 13 times
    Explaining that a release “is a present abandonment of a known right,” and will not be construed to waive claims not known by the parties at the time of its execution

    "Generally, rights of action originating after a release are not settled or barred by it, unless they are expressly embraced therein or fall within the fair import of the terms therein employed." Haco Drilling Co. v. Hammer, 1967 OK 71, ¶ 0, 426 P.2d 689, 690 (syl. no. 3 by the Court). See also Antco, Inc. v. Dodge Fuel Corp., 550 S.E.2d 622, 630 (W.Va. 2001); Clark v. Columbia/HCA Info. Servs., Inc., 25 P.3d 215, 223-24 (Nev. 2001); Loberg v. Hallwood Realty Partners, L.P., 753 N.E.2d 1020, 1025 (Ill.App.Ct. 2001); Medtronic, 247 F.3d at 58; Capocy v. Kirtadze, 183 F.3d 629, 632 (7th Cir. 1999) (all explaining that a release will not be construed to include claims not contemplated or known by the parties at the time of its execution).

  2. Fossum v. Saif

    289 Or. 787 (Or. 1980)   Cited 12 times

    To the same effect, see Laird v. The State of Vermont Highway Dept., 112 Vt. 67, 20 A.2d 555 (1941); Fitzgerald v. Fisher Body, 234 Mo App 269, 130 S.W.2d 975 (1939); Judd v. Rinelli, 75 Idaho 121, 268 P.2d 671 (1954); American Radiator Sanitary Corporation v. Gerth, 375 S.W.2d 817 (Ky 1964); Lambing v. Consolidated Coal Co., 161 Pa. Super. 346, 54 A.2d 291 (1947); Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Dependents of Harris, 187 So.2d 886 (1966). See also Haco Drilling Co. v. Hammer, 426 P.2d 689 (Okla 1967); Industrial Commission v. Kamrath, 118 Ohio St. 1, 160 N.E. 470 (1928); Ross v. Mankato, 199 Minn. 284, 271 NW 582, 584 (1937); Wolanin v. Chrysler Corp., 304 Mich. 164, 7 N.W.2d 257 (1943); Magma Copper Co. v. Naglich, 60 Ariz. 43, 131 P.2d 357 (1942); Anno., 119 ALR 1158-65 (1939). These cases hold that the failure of a worker to file within the appropriate time period after disability or injury in no way prejudices the right of a widow to file a claim for widow's benefits after the death of her husband, contrary to the result required by the decision of the Court of Appeals.

  3. McKissick v. Yuen

    618 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2010)   Cited 132 times
    Holding that an appellant’s failure to explain "how [arguments] survive the plain error standard waives the arguments in this court"

    Ms. McKissick cites us other Oklahoma authority she believes supports her position. But it is unavailing. Haco Drilling Co. v. Hammer, 426 P.2d 689, 694 (Okla. 1967), dealt with the prerequisites for a release of future damages — that is, damages arising after execution of the release. In such cases, the question is "whether the consideration paid . . . was for damages already sustained or to exempt defendant from any future damages" as well.

  4. Western Chance #2, Inc. v. KFC Corp.

    957 F.2d 1538 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    Affirming exclusion of affidavits submitted after deadline imposed in local rule

    It did not, and probably could not, operate to extinguish future claims. See Yellowstone Pipe Line Co. v. Kuczynski, 283 F.2d 415, 420-21 (9th Cir. 1960) (California law); Haco Drilling Co. v. Hammer, 426 P.2d 689, 694-95 (Okla. 1967) (Oklahoma law). Since the terms of the oral agreement and those of the individual franchise agreements are not inherently irreconcilable, Western Chance did not necessarily release existing, and then undisputed, rights under the oral agreement when it signed the General Release. Moreover, Western Chance maintains it first learned of KFC's plans to open company-owned stores in Tucson in December of 1987. If so, at the time the General Release was signed, Western Chance's claims of breach of the oral agreement had not matured, and the release would not act as a bar to unknown prospective claims. In any event, the intended scope of the General Release and its effect, if any, upon KFC's and Western Chance's obligations under the oral agreement are material disputed facts.

  5. Ham v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

    283 F. Supp. 153 (N.D. Okla. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    50 C.J.S. Judgments § 593b, pp. 13-14; § 763, p. 292; § 764, p. 292. Haco Drilling Company v. Hammer, 426 P.2d 689 (Okla. 1967); Wilkey v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, 322 P.2d 1058 (Okla. 1958); Harding v. Taylor, supra, note 2. In order to show that the injuries, which are alleged by Defendant to be the basis of both actions, are in fact the same injuries, the Defendant will have to put on proper evidence.

  6. National Gypsum Company v. Brewster

    461 P.2d 593 (Okla. 1969)   Cited 13 times
    In National Gypsum Company v. Brewster, 1969 OK 185, 461 P.2d 593, we held § 48 also applied to protect a wife's death claim "from being assigned, released or commuted".

    We have held that a joint-petition settlement by an injured workman, of his compensation claim, during his lifetime, under the provisions of 85 O.S. 1961 § 84[ 85-84], does not bar the claim of his widow, children, or next of kin, for death benefits under the provisions of 85 O.S. 1961 § 22[ 85-22](7), upon the death of the injured workman from injuries sustained. Haco Drilling Co. v. Hammer, Okla., 426 P.2d 689; Viersen Cochran Drilling Company v. Ford, Okla., 425 P.2d 965, citing numerous cases. We now consider the legal effect of the execution of the settlement agreement by the wife and widow on the problem involved.