Oller v. Hicks

29 Citing cases

  1. Continental Trend Resources, Inc. v. Oxy USA, Inc.

    810 F. Supp. 1520 (W.D. Okla. 1992)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that "[t]he financial worth of a parent corporation is generally irrelevant in assessing punitive damages on a subsidiary unless the corporate veil is pierced," but concluding that the subsidiary itself had pierced its parent's veil

    The second factor to consider in determining the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the harm Oxy's conduct caused to society in general. See Oller v. Hicks, 441 P.2d 356, 360 (Okla. 1967) ("The basis for allowance of punitive damages rests upon the principle that they are allowed as punishment for the benefit of society as a restraint upon the transgressor, and a warning and example serving as a deterrent to commission of like offenses in the future."). The jury found that Oxy's intent was to improperly injure plaintiffs and thus wrongfully destroy honest competition.

  2. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Pope

    2022 OK 4 (Okla. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    We need not address in this controversy any differences in application and analysis between the amount of punitive damages determined by a jury and a statutorily-determined amount of damages with a punitive purpose.Goss v. Trinity Savs. & Loan Ass'n, 1991 OK 19, 813 P.2d 492, 495; cf. LeFlore v. Reflections of Tulsa, Inc., 1985 OK 72, 708 P.2d 1068, 1077 (punitive damages are allowed as punishment for the benefit of society as a restraint upon the transgressor, and a warning and example serving as a deterrent to such conduct); Oller v. Hicks, 1967 OK 240, 441 P.2d 356, 360 (same). ¶21 In McIntosh v. Watkins, 2019 OK 6, 441 P.3d 1094, we explained 47 O.S. §10-103 was amended several years ago to add both a criminal penalty and civil treble damages: "Title 47 O.S. 1961, § 10-103 has only been amended once since its enactment.

  3. Lerma v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    2006 OK 84 (Okla. 2006)   Cited 20 times

    ¶ 20 Counsel have wide latitude in opening and closing statements, subject to the trial court's control, and limitation of the scope of the arguments is within the trial court's discretion. See, Oiler v. Hicks, 1967 OK 240 ¶ 16, 441 P.2d 356. There must be a showing that counsel's conduct substantially influenced the verdict and/or denied the defendant a fair trial. Wilcox Oil Co. v. Walters, 1955 OK 147 ¶ 17, 284 P.2d 726, 728. This court will defer to the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial where the motion is based on alleged misconduct of counsel unless there is a clear showing of prejudice.

  4. Williamson v. Fowler Toyota, Inc.

    1998 OK 14 (Okla. 1998)   Cited 37 times
    Stating that self-help repossession is allowed under Oklahoma law, even if it would otherwise constitute a trespass, absent a breach of the peace

    And, in such an action these damages are peculiarly within the province of the jury, whose verdict will not be interfered with lightly upon the claim of excessiveness." Oller v. Hicks, 1967 OK 240, ¶ 13, 441 P.2d 356 (1967).ATTORNEY'S FEE AND COSTS

  5. Okland Oil Company v. Conoco Inc.

    144 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. 1998)   Cited 110 times
    Holding that a district court must provide an "adequate explanation" for its discretionary denial of costs

    Punitive damages, on the other hand, are intended to provide a "`punishment for the benefit of society as a restraint upon the transgressor, and a warning and example serving as a deterrent to commission of like offenses in the future.'" Maxwell v. Samson Resources Co., 848 P.2d 1166, 1172 (Okla. 1993) (quoting Oller v. Hicks, 441 P.2d 356, 360 (Okla. 1967)). Therefore, "`[w]hen a defendant's conduct is such as to amount to fraud, oppression or malice, or the act is wilfully and wantonly done with criminal indifference to the plaintiff's rights, exemplary damages are allowable.'"

  6. 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

    Such an inference is reasonable from the evidence in the instant case. Moreover, in Oller v. Hicks, 441 P.2d 356 (Okl. 1967), the court held that when the evidence shows criminal indifference to the plaintiff's rights, exemplary damages are "peculiarly within the province of the jury, whose verdict will not be interfered with lightly upon the claim of excessiveness." Id. at 360.

  7. Spaeth v. Union Oil Co. of California

    710 F.2d 1455 (10th Cir. 1983)   Cited 18 times
    Applying Oklahoma law

    The Supreme Court has characterized a punitive award as a "discretionary moral judgment." Smith v. Wade, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 1638, 75 L.Ed.2d 632. Absent an award which shocks the judicial conscience, a jury's determination is inviolate. Metcalfe v. Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Co., 10 Cir., 491 F.2d 892, 898, and Oller v. Hicks, Okl., 441 P.2d 356, 360. On the record presented the punitive award shocks our collective judicial conscience.

  8. White v. Conoco, Inc.

    710 F.2d 1442 (10th Cir. 1983)   Cited 111 times
    Noting that the party seeking to set aside jury verdict bears burden to demonstrate prejudicial error

    The evidence in this record further justifies the submission of the punitive damage instruction by the court and the punitive damage award by the jury. Punitive damages are properly awarded when a wrongdoer acts willfully, wantonly or in reckless disregard of the rights of another, resulting in injury. Basden v. Mills, 472 P.2d 889 (Okl. 1970) (also holding that an award of punitive damages is peculiarly a matter for jury determination and that such determination will not be interfered with lightly upon a claim of excessiveness); Oller v. Hicks, 441 P.2d 356 (Okl. 1967); Cooperative Refinery Association v. Young, 393 P.2d 537 (Okl. 1964). In Miller v. Tidal Oil Co., 161 Okl. 155, 17 P.2d 967 (Okl. 1932), the court defined a good faith trespasser as one who acts without culpable negligence or willful disregard of the rights of others and in an honest, reasonably belief that his action is proper.

  9. Misco Leasing, Inc. v. Keller

    490 F.2d 545 (10th Cir. 1974)   Cited 23 times
    Recognizing malice in slander-of-title claim is "the principal element . . . and the one most difficult to prove"

    When we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to Keller, it clearly supports the trial court's findings of Misco's malicious and fraudulent conduct. Under all of the circumstances evidenced by this record involving the three ice machines, we hold that the trial court did not err in awarding punitive damages. 23 Okla.Stat.Ann. § 9 (1955); Oller v. Hicks, 441 P.2d 356 (Okl. 1967); Lenn v. Miller, 403 P.2d 458 (Okl. 1965). It is not improper, under Oklahoma law, for punitive damages to exceed actual damages as long as the amount awarded is reasonable and bears some relation to the injury inflicted. Garland Coal Mining Co. v. Few, supra; Walton v. Bennett, 376 P.2d 240 (Okl. 1962).

  10. Professional Asset Management v. Penn Square Bank

    566 F. Supp. 134 (W.D. Okla. 1983)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that punitive damages could not be awarded against receiver because to do so would injure innocent creditors and depositors of culprit bank

    Punitive or exemplary damages, which are an exception to the general remedial principle of compensation for injury, are imposed for two reasons, to punish the wrongdoer and to deter others. See Oller v. Hicks, 441 P.2d 356, 360 (Okla. 1967); C. McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Damages § 77 (1935); 1 T. Sedgwick, A Treatise on the Measure of Damages § 360 (9th ed. 1912). See also Symposium on the Oklahoma Law of Damages, 6 Okla. L. Rev. 289, 293-98 (1953).