Tice v. Tice

33 Citing cases

  1. Muller v. Al Muller

    311 P.3d 1247 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    ” Id. ¶ 40, 956 P.2d at 903. In Tice v. Tice, 1983 OK 108, 672 P.2d 1168, the Supreme Court found:JOHN F. FISCHER

  2. Rainbow Travel Serv. v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

    896 F.2d 1233 (10th Cir. 1990)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted a shuttle bus driver's statements concerning his employing hotel's reservation practices as statements made within the scope of the driver's agency, even though the driver was not involved in the decision-making process regarding hotel reservations

    Appellants next argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict on fraud. Under Oklahoma law, fraud consists of a false material representation made as a positive assertion which is known either to be false, or is made recklessly without knowledge of the truth, with the intention that it be acted upon by a party to his or her detriment. Tice v. Tice, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171 (Okla. 1983). As the jury was instructed, fraud must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

  3. Seay v. Weaver

    No. 19-CV-00474-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla. Jul. 23, 2021)

    “Fraud is never presumed, but must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Tice v. Tice, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171 (Okla. 1983). 19.

  4. First Sec. Bank v. W & W Farms, Inc.

    No. 2:19-CV-91-Z (N.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    To be actionable, however, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has held that a fraud must contain a "false material representation made as to a positive assertion which is known either to be false, or made recklessly without knowledge of the truth [or falsity], with the intention that it be acted upon, and which is relied upon by a party to his/her detriment." Tice v. Tice, 672 P.2d 1168, 1170 (Okla. 1983). Accord Rogers v. Meiser, 68 P.3d 967 (Okla. 2003).

  5. Buford White Lumber v. Octagon

    740 F. Supp. 1553 (W.D. Okla. 1989)   Cited 12 times
    Explaining that the presumption of reliance in an omissions case may be conclusively rebutted by facts showing the plaintiff's reliance was unreasonable as a matter of law

    Actual fraud requires reliance regardless of the nature of the act or statement constituting a misrepresentation. See, e.g., Tice v. Tice, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171 (Okla. 1983); D H Co., Inc. v. Shultz, 579 P.2d 821, 824 (Okla. 1978).

  6. Bowman v. Presley

    2009 OK 48 (Okla. 2009)   Cited 87 times
    Reversing a grant of summary judgment that had held the buyers of a home represented as larger than it was had not suffered any detriment, because a jury could find that the buyers would be entitled to the value of the home as represented

    Rogers v. Meiser, 2003 OK 6, ¶ 17, 68 P.3d 967, 977; Dawson v. Tindell, 1987 OK 10, ¶ 5, 733 P.2d 407, 408.Rogers v. Meiser, supra note 25, at ¶ 17, at 977; Brown v. Founders Bank and Trust Co., 1994 OK 130, ¶ 12 n. 17, 890 P.2d 855, 862 n. 17; Tice v. Tice, 1983 OK 108, ¶ 8, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171. "Actual fraud is always a question of fact." 15 O.S. 2001 § 60[ 15-60].

  7. Muller v. Muller

    2013 OK Civ. App. 90 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013)

    " Id. ¶ 40, 956 P.2d at 903. In Tice v. Tice, 1983 OK 108, 672 P.2d 1168, the Supreme Court found: The basis of fraudulent misrepresentation is the creation of a false impression and damage sustained as a natural and probable consequence of the act charged.

  8. Seirafi-Pour v. Bagherinassab

    197 P.3d 1097 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 21 The relief sought by Appellee in the form of an annulment is based on a claim of fraud. "Fraud is never presumed, but must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." Tice v. Tice, 1983 OK 108, ¶ 8, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171. The testimony of the parties conflicted on the issue of whether Appellant fraudulently induced Appellee to marry her. "When fraud is properly alleged by one party and denied by the other party, the existence or non-existence of fraud becomes a question of fact."

  9. Bankers Trust Co. v. Brown

    107 P.3d 609 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004)   Cited 15 times

    ¶ 14 "Actionable fraud consists of a false material representation made as a positive assertion which is known either to be false, or made recklessly without knowledge of the truth [or falsity], with the intention that it be acted upon, and which is relied upon by a party to his/her detriment." Tice v. Tice, 1983 OK 108, ¶ 7, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171 (footnote omitted). Constructive fraud is "the concealment of material facts which one is bound under the circumstances to disclose."

  10. MCC Management of Naples, Inc. v. International Bancshares Corp.

    468 F. App'x 816 (10th Cir. 2012)   Cited 22 times

    IBC is correct that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that "[a]ctionable fraud consists of a false material representation made as a positive assertion which is known either to be false, or made recklessly without knowledge of the truth, with the intention that it be acted upon, and which is relied upon by a party to his/her detriment." Tice v. Tice, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171 (Okla. 1983). But upon a review of the record, we think a jury could have found that the fraudulent assertion was the tax disclosure drafted to prevent inquiry into the material facts and hinder the Colliers from discovering the deductions.