Rambo v. Hicks

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Rambo v. Hicks

1986 OK 86, 733 P.2d 405, 1986 Okla. LEXIS 200

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 16, 1986

Docket65152

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1986 OK 86 (Rambo v. Hicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rambo v. Hicks, 1986 OK 86, 733 P.2d 405, 1986 Okla. LEXIS 200 (Okla. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALMA WILSON, Justice:

Appellees-Rambo initially brought this civil suit against the Appellants-Hicks in Small Claims Court. On the Appellees’ motion, the action was removed from the Small Claims docket and was heard by the District Court. A $650 money judgment in favor of the Appellees was rendered. Thereafter, the District Court awarded the prevailing parties, Appellees herein, a reasonable attorney fee of $664.00.

Appellants now bring this appeal, alleging that they are entitled to an award of attorney fees in the amount of $1,000, plus the additional costs of this appeal — an amount approximately three times that awarded to the Appellees as prevailing parties. Despite the fact that the Appellees alone were awarded judgment in the trial court, Appellants attempt to convince this Court that they are the prevailing party. We particularly note that the mere availability of more than one form of remedial relief upon a single cause of action, does not abrogate the rule that there can be only one prevailing party. Quapaw v. H.B. Varnell, 566 P.2d 164 (Okl.App.1977).

No reversible error of law appears and the judgment is affirmed under Rule 1.202(b), 12 O.S.Supp.1984, Ch. 15, App. 2.

AFFIRMED.

DOOLIN, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, HARGRAVE and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. SIMMS, C.J., and HODGES, J., concur in result. OPALA and KAUGER, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALMA WILSON, Justice:

Appellees-Rambo initially brought this civil suit against the Appellants-Hicks in Small Claims Court. On the Appellees’ motion, the action was removed from the Small Claims docket and was heard by the District Court. A $650 money judgment in favor of the Appellees was rendered. Thereafter, the District Court awarded the prevailing parties, Appellees herein, a reasonable attorney fee of $664.00.

Appellants now bring this appeal, alleging that they are entitled to an award of attorney fees in the amount of $1,000, plus the additional costs of this appeal — an amount approximately three times that awarded to the Appellees as prevailing parties. Despite the fact that the Appellees alone were awarded judgment in the trial court, Appellants attempt to convince this Court that they are the prevailing party. We particularly note that the mere availability of more than one form of remedial relief upon a single cause of action, does not abrogate the rule that there can be only one prevailing party. Quapaw v. H.B. Varnell, 566 P.2d 164 (Okl.App.1977).

No reversible error of law appears and the judgment is affirmed under Rule 1.202(b), 12 O.S.Supp.1984, Ch. 15, App. 2.

AFFIRMED.

DOOLIN, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, HARGRAVE and SUMMERS, JJ., concur. SIMMS, C.J., and HODGES, J., concur in result. OPALA and KAUGER, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1986 OK 86, 733 P.2d 405, 1986 Okla. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rambo-v-hicks-okla-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack