# Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co.

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · April 9, 1968 · 440 P.2d 713

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856902

## Case

- **Full name:** Wright BOMFORD, Audrey S. Bomford, Tom Bomford, Dan German, and Dan German, Executor of the Estate of Dee German, Deceased, Plaintiffs in Error, v. SOCONY MOBIL OIL CO., Inc., a New York Corporation, Major Royalty Corporation, a Corporation, R. B. Eavans, Marie Evelyn Eavans, Guy Looper, Lena A. Looper, F. L. Finley, R. J. Dollar, Paul A. Tucker, and the Unknown Heirs, and Heirs, Administrators, Executors, Legatees, Devisees, Trustees and Assigns, Immediate and Remote, of Sampson Joe, Deceased, Choctaw Roil No. 4828, and the Unknown Claimants to the Lands Involved Herein, the Heirs, Executors, Administrators, Legatees, Devisees, Trustees and Assigns, Immediate and Remote, Defendants in Error
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 9, 1968
- **Citations:** 440 P.2d 713; 1968 OK 43
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lavender
- **Judges:** Berry, Blackbird, Davison, Hodges, Irwin, Jackson, Lavender, McINERNEY, Williams
- **Cited by:** 95 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856902

## Opinion text

LAVENDER, Justice
(dissenting in part) :
I concur in those portions of the majority opinion herein which are represented by the first, second, and third paragraphs of the syllabus, and in the determination that the judgment under attack in the trial court was not shown to be violative of the “due process” provisions of the state or federal constitutions and should be affirmed; but I dissent to all other portions of the opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856902. Public record. Not legal advice.