# Holbert v. Echeverria

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · October 20, 1987 · 744 P.2d 960

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9618275

## Case

- **Full name:** Pansy M. HOLBERT and David Dumas, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Counter-Appellees, v. Nelson ECHEVERRIA D/B/A Nelson Construction Company, Defendant-Appellee and Counter-Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** October 20, 1987
- **Citations:** 744 P.2d 960; 1987 OK 99; 1987 Okla. LEXIS 248
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kauger
- **Judges:** Opala, Doolin, Hargrave, Lavender, Simms, Wilson, Summers, Hodges, Kauger
- **Cited by:** 68 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by Walls v. American Tobacco Co., 2000 Okla. LEXIS 67 (2000).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9618275

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining a statutory regulatory scheme does not necessarily create a judicially enforceable right of action, and adopting three prongs of the four-prong test in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), wherein one of the prongs is whether the statute pr…
- holding that when a statute “is for the benefit of the general public, no special class is established for whose especial benefit it was created”
- holding “Supreme Court decisions have placed special emphasis” on the second Cort factor
- noting that there is no private right of action under Oklahoma’s consumer protection act

## Opinion text

KAUGER, Justice,
dissenting to part II only.
I recognize that there are conflicting lines of authority concerning contracts of sale, contracts of labor and “contracts relating thereto.” However, the longstanding national jurisprudence holds that if the seller furnishes materials and fashions them according to specifications furnished by the purchaser or according to some model selected, and when without the contract the thing furnished would never have been built or it would never have been put in the particular shape or condition, the contract is one for labor and services. 1 I would award attorneys fees pursuant to 12 O.S.1981 § 936(2), and I would overrule Burrows Const. Co. v. Independent Sch. *967 Dist., 704 P.2d 1136 (Okla.1985) and Russell v. Flanagan, 544 P.2d 510 (Okla.1975).
. Eastlake Const. Co., Inc. v. Hess, 102 Wash.2d 30 , 686 P.2d 465, 475 (1984); Hague v. Cleary, 48 P.2d 5 , 9-10 (Cal.1935); Flynn v. Dougherty, 91 Cal. 669 , 27 P. 1080 -81 (1891). See also, Annot., "Construction and Effect of Exception Making the Statute of Frauds Provision Inapplicable Where Goods are Manufactured by Seller for Buyer,” 25 A.L.R.2d 672 , 680 (1952).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9618275. Public record. Not legal advice.