• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
12 results

Rural Water Dist #6 vs Peck

Docket SD-122137, Oklahoma State, Supreme Court (Apr. 26, 2024)
Appellant Peck, Max
Appellee RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 6
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 1058189536

Document Rural Water Dist #6 vs Peck, SD-122137, No. 1058189536 (Okla. May. 20, 2024)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1058188629

Document Rural Water Dist #6 vs Peck, SD-122137, No. 1058188629 (Okla. May. 2, 2024)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1041031260

Document Rural Water Dist #6 vs Peck, SD-122137, No. 1041031260 (Okla. Jun. 27, 2024)
The following cases are assigned to the Court of Civil ADEBKS, Tulsa, Divisions 2 and 4.
The judgesserving in the Tulsa Divisions are Jane P. Wiseman, John Fischer, Deborah B. Barnes, Stacie Hixon, Gregory C. Blackwell and James R. Huber.
The judgessit in three-judge panels which rotate periodically, but all assigned caseswill be decided by three of the above named judges.
al. 122,182 Virginia Campbell v. Sadler Investments, LLC 122,193 Dorita Herd v. OK Dept.
Of Veterans Affairs 122,209 Earth Research Labs,LLC,et.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1058189232

Document Rural Water Dist #6 vs Peck, SD-122137, No. 1058189232 (Okla. May. 28, 2024)
Attached as Exhibit “A”is appellee’s statement of the case not to exceed one 8 2” x 11” double spacedpageif not clearly set out by the appellant in petition in error.
In accelerated appeals from orders granting motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss, only appellee shall either file the counter-designation of record, if any, with the response to the petition in error, or shall also file concurrently with response, any supplement to record on accelerated appeal.
Defendant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee (“Peck”), who does not own the land at issue where the District’s line was damaged, and lacks standing to bring any counterclaims, failed to submit a mandatory and routine locate request pursuant to the Oklahoma UndergroundFacilities Damage Prevention Act, and hit the District’s line with a dozer on November12, 2021.
Undeterred, Peck continued to excavate, exposing 1,200 feet of the District’s line, requiring it to be replaced and lowered.
The ownerat the time the District’s line was damaged (whois not Peck) purchased the land subject to the District’s easement andline.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1057691937

Document Rural Water Dist #6 vs Peck, SD-122137, No. 1057691937 (Okla. May. 16, 2024)
Were any post-trial motionsfiled? None,other than Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Brief in Support, filed May1, 2024.
RELATED OR PRIOR APPEALS List all prior appeals involving sameparties or sametrial court proceeding: None IV.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1057691945

Document Rural Water Dist #6 vs Peck, SD-122137, No. 1057691945 (Okla. May. 16, 2024)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1057691941

Document Rural Water Dist #6 vs Peck, SD-122137, No. 1057691941 (Okla. May. 16, 2024)
Log in to see more
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 >>