M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Home
Verdicts
and
Decisions
Search Database
Recent Cases
Cases By Subject
Report A Case
Lawyers
Search Directory
By State & City
Add A
Lawyer Listing
Court
Reporters
Recent Listings
Search
By States & City
Add A Basic
Reporter Listing
Expert
Witnesses
Recent Listings
Search Directory
By State & Expertise
Add A Basic
Expert Witness
Listing
MoreLaw
Store
The Store
Recent Listings
(Search)
Add A Basic
Classified Ad
Links
County Seats
State Links
Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw


Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Date: 06-19-2012

Case Style: Tracy Alan Moore v. Alstrial Compton

Case Number: CJ-2010-8818

Judge: Bryan C. Dixon

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Greg S. Wilson, Wilson Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Shawnee, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Richard A. Bruce, Noland, Pettigrew & Bruce, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Description: Tracy Alan Moore sued Alstrrial Compton on an auto negligence theory.

ANSWER

COMES NOW the Defendant Aistrial Compton, by and through counsel, who generally denies each and every claim and allegation as contained in Plaintiffs’ Petition except as more specifically set forth herein:

1. The Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny those claims and allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 3of Plaintiffs’ Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof.

2. The Defendant admits that an automobile accident took place between the parties on the date as set forth in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. The Defendant denies those remaining claims and allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and therefore demands strict woof thereof.

For further answer and defense the Defendant states as follows:

First Affirmative Defense

The negligence if any of the parties and any relevant non-parties will be developed during discovery and the Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead defenses as to contributory and comparative negligence at the time of pretrial.

Second Affirmative Defense

Whether Plaintiffs have acted to mitigate their damages will be developed during discovery and the Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead that defense at the time of pretrial.

Third Affirmative Defense

Whether any portion of the Plaintiffs’ claims have been barred by the statute of limitations or by the doctrines of wavier, release and accord-and-satisfaction will be developed during discovery and defendant specifically reserves the right to plead those affirmative defenses at the time of pretrial.

Fourth Affirmative Defense

Whether the Plaintiffs suffer from any preexisting or post-arising medical condition will be developed during discovery and the Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead those defenses at the time of pretrial.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Defendant prays that the action against him be dismissed and he be awarded costs such as the court may determine is just.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2012 MoreLaw.com, Inc.