Pearl v. Oklahoma City

2 Citing cases

  1. Eastwood v. Natl. Bank of Comm., Altus

    673 F. Supp. 1068 (W.D. Okla. 1987)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding Rule(b)'s requirements apply to claims for secondary liability, like conspiracy or aiding and abetting, in securities fraud cases

    See also Okla.Stat. tit. 15, ยง 58; D H Co. v. Shultz, 579 P.2d 821, 824 (Okla. 1978). It does not appear that Oklahoma recognizes a cause of action for aiding and abetting common law fraud but that it may recognize a civil cause of action for conspiracy to defraud. See Dill v. Rader, 583 P.2d 496 (Okla. 1978); Pearl v. Oklahoma City, 193 Okla. 597, 145 P.2d 400 (1944); Clemons v. Hampton, 191 Okla. 693, 132 P.2d 919 (1943); Nissen v. Andres, 178 Okla. 469, 63 P.2d 47 (Okla. 1936). However, even under such a theory, Plaintiffs' claim fails because Plaintiffs have not alleged any specific act by this Defendant in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy or an agreement with other Defendants to defraud Plaintiffs, the time and place of the agreement and the substance thereof.

  2. Washington v. World Publishing Company

    1972 OK 166 (Okla. 1973)   Cited 14 times
    In Washington v. World Pub. Co., 506 P.2d 913 (Okla. 1973) we began with the assumption that the article was libelous per se and false, but found the record lacking proof of actual malice.

    n Party.", [emphasis added] and "Defendant before publishing said libelous matter failed to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain the truth of the facts so published" [emphasis added] and with no other allegations of any additional acts or omissions plaintiff pleads the conclusion of "actual malice" in the exact language of Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, supra. As heretofore stated, plaintiff does not deny the accusation having been made by Thomas to the reporter, or dissension and problems within the American Party and among its members in Oklahoma and specifically in Tulsa County. Nor is there an allegation in the petition of any personal animosity between plaintiff and Ervin or of any circumstances from which it could even be inferred that Ervin was motivated toward public ridicule or vilification of plaintiff. This Court has held in an action for damages for conspiracy the petition must allege facts showing the conspiracy, a mere charge of conspiracy being insufficient, Pearl v. Oklahoma City et al., 193 Okla. 597, 145 P.2d 400; allegations based largely, if not completely, on legal conclusions without a concise statement of the facts are insufficient and demurrable, Hoover et al. v. Board of Commrs. of Garvin County, 157 Okla. 255, 13 P.2d 207; Bates v. Old Mac Coal Co., Okla., 271 P.2d 315. In Weston v. Acme Tool, Inc., Okla., 441 P.2d 959, we held: