Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

R.M. OLDS, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT BELOW), v. JACK W. HOSFORD, APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF BELOW), J.H. KEIL (THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT BELOW). J.H. KEIL, APPELLANT (THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT BELOW),

PER CURIAM.

Because of the appellee's insistence that there was no issue before the trial court on the question of malice, fraud, oppression or willful wrong on the part of the appellee, we carefully re-examined the entire record, as well as the opinion of this court. This re-examination satisfies us that the very question now insisted upon was sufficiently considered and disposed of in the original opinion.

Furthermore, the remanding of the case to the district court for further proceedings was occasioned by the refusal of the trial court to consider or admit evidence as to recoverability of attorneys' fees under any circumstance. This was the fundamental error which made necessary the reversal.

McINTYRE, J., not participating.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

OLDS v. HOSFORD
(Feb 10, 1961)