Estates of Perry v. Hill

40 P.3d 492 (2001)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Estates of Perry v. Hill

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
40 P.3d 492 (2001)

Facts

Hubert M. Perry and Ruth L. Jones-Perry, a married couple, were involved in a head-on collision and died at the scene. They had no children together, but Jones-Perry had three children from a prior marriage, and Perry had other heirs. At trial, witness Jerad Kirkes testified that upon finding the accident, he found Jones-Perry’s pulse and saw her breathing. Kirkes and Ryan Patrick Stroud then moved Perry, who was gasping for breath, away from the car. Kirkes checked Jones-Perry’s pulse again and found it, but she was no longer breathing. Kirkes stated that although people were performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Perry at that time, he believed that Perry was already dead. He checked Jones-Perry’s pulse again but could not find it. Kirkes believed that Jones-Perry had survived Perry by three to six minutes. Kirkes acknowledged that he never checked Perry’s pulse. Stroud testified to substantially similar facts and believed that Jones-Perry had survived Perry by at least a minute. The spouses’ death certificates stated the time of death for both as 11:15 p.m. James Fred Hill (defendant), Perry’s estate’s representative, argued that the testimony did not meet the requirements of the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) for establishing when a person was dead. Rich D. Jones (plaintiff), Jones-Perry’s estate’s representative, sought a determination that Jones-Perry survived Perry and that the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act (USDA) did not apply. The trial court concluded that Jones-Perry survived Perry and determined the heirs. Hill appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in finding that Jones had to prove that Perry predeceased Jones-Perry by a preponderance of the evidence rather than clear and convincing evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to find that the spouses died otherwise than simultaneously.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Buettner, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership