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

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-16-2015

Case Style: Antonio Perez v. Robert Phillip Morgan

Case Number: CJ-2013-4219

Judge: Mary Fitzgerald

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here For The Best Tulsa Personal Injury Lawyer Directory




Defendant's Attorney: Tim Crow

Description: 1. Plaintiff was at all material times a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant was at all material times upon information and belief a resident of
Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
3. Defendant John Doe, a business entity, is a business whose identity is unknown now, but may be revealed through the course of discovery. Defendant John Doe is an entity that transacts business/engages in commerce on a regular basis in Oklahoma, and the claims alleged here arise out of the Defendant John Doe’s actions and/or inactions in Oklahoma.
4. Defendant Jane Doe, an individual, is a person residing in Oklahoma hose identity is unknown at this time, but may be revealed through the course of discovery.
5. This motor vehicle incident occurred in Tulsa County, OK on about 08/27/12.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter.
7. Defendant failed to yield, directly causing this incident.
8. Defendant made an improper act and/or movement with Defendant’s vehicle.
9. Defendant hit and damaged Plaintiffs property and/or vehicle, causing damages including but not limited to diminished value, negligent injury to property, loss of use, etc.
10. This impact directly caused personal injuries and property damages.
11. Defendant was the unsafe and/or unlawfulll factor directly causing this incident.
12. Defendant directly caused this crash.
13. Defendant failed to yield to Plaintiffs right of way.
14. Defendant directly caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff
15. Defendant breached duties owed to Plaintiff
16. Defendant was negligent, negligent per se and/or committed res ipsa because Defendant violated and/or breached applicable statute(s), law(s), and/or ordinance(s), which directly caused injury to Plaintiffs person and property.
17. Defendant had the responsibility to drive as a reasonably prudent driver at the date and time of this incident.
18. Defendant violated that responsibility.
19. Defendant was negligent.
20. As a direct result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of $10,000, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, costs, expenses, any all other relief which this Court deems just and proper.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: