Case law

Schrom Ex Rel. Schrom v. Oklahoma Industrial Development

536 P.2d 904 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 13, 1975

must clearly permit the state to be sued or the right to do so will not exist. … reference or construction; and the statutes must clearly permit the State to be sued or the right to do so will not exist.

TULSA STOCKYARDS, INC. v. CLARK

321 P.3d 185 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 2014

A statute will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with the constitution. Id. … The party challenging a statute's constitutionality has a heavy burden to establish that the statute is in excess of legislative power.

MOORE v. WARR ACRES NURSING CENTER, LLC.

2016 OK 28 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 2016

The answer is overwhelmingly and clearly yes. ¶21 In Silver v. … side effects of the immunization; (ii) Each resident is offered an influenza immunization October 1 through March 31 annually, unless the immunization is medically contraindicated or the resident has already been immunized

Tuffy's, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City

212 P.3d 1158 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 20, 2009

We held that an employing political subdivision is immune as a matter of law only if an officer's acts are so extreme as to constitute a clearly unlawful usurpation of authority the officer does not rightfully possess. … for any claim arising from law enforcement would not conform to established precedent.

Enterprise Management Consultants, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission

768 P.2d 359 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 19, 1988

It was reconveyed to the United States in trust for the Tribe to allow the Tribe to qualify for funding under the Economic Development Act. S.Rep. No. 93-877, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. [1974]. . … The cotut concluded that the tribal enterprise was immune from state regulation and that this immunity extended to the non-Indian corporate manager.

Jack v. State

183 Okla. 375 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1937

The sole contention in that case was that the resolution merely waived the immunity of the state from suit, “and that it does not either expressly or impliedly waive the right of the commonwealth to insist on its immunity … L. 1935, is broad enough to disclose a legislative intent not only to waive the immunity of the state from suit, but to assume liability for such negligence of its agents as might be established upon a trial of the cause.

Taylor v. State Ex Rel. Rutherford

291 P.2d 1033 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1955

the branches of the healing art as defined in 59 O.S. 1951 § 702, must append to his name so written or printed in the same size letters as his name appropriate and generally and easily understood words or letters, which clearly … Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution is in part as follows: “ * * * No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall

Mahaffey v. Territory of Oklahoma

11 Okla. 213 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 4, 1901

We do not think that this is a reasonable interpretation of our statute, and it is clearly not the intent of the law-making power. … We think that this instruction was clearly erroneous as highly prejudicial to the rights of the accused, and therefore requires the reversal of the cause.

Magnusson v. New York Times Co.

98 P.3d 1070 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 24, 2004

Evans, see note 19, supra [Op-ed column calling plaintiff "an outspoken proponent of political Marxism" clearly opinion.]; Ogden Bus Lines v. … Mixed statements of opinion-facts not stated nor assumed by the parties to exist-enjoy only a qualified immunity. Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co., see note 8, supra. 40 . White v.

Speight v. Presley

203 P.3d 173 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 10, 2008

Defendants argue that court clerks are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for performing tasks intimately related to the judicial process, citing Sindram v. … We affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Board of County Commissioners because the summary judgment materials of record in that case clearly and conclusively established that at the time of the vouecher's issuance, the

In Re Simpson

79 Okla. 305 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 21, 1920

His guilt should be clearly established. In re Evans, 22 Utah, 366 , 62 Pac. 913 , 83 Am. St. Rep. 794 , 59 L. R. A. 952. There is the evidence of a self-confessed accomplice that the bribe was paid. … established.

Dill v. Rader

583 P.2d 496 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 23, 1978

It is for the trial judge to determine whether such a prima facie case has been established. … ‘Where subsequent acts are relied on to establish a conspiracy, they must clearly indicate the prior collusive combination and fraudulent purpose and must warrant the conclusion that the subsequent acts were done in furtherance

Gourley v. Countryman

18 Okla. 220 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1907

issue it relates back to the inception of the patentee so as to cut out all intervening claims, but until patent does issue the certificate carries 'with it. to the purchaser the full equitable title, with all the benefits, immunities … The foregoing authorities clearly establish the doctrine that a receiver’s certificate conveys only an equitable estate; that until patent issues the fee remains in the United *233 States, from which it must necessarily follow

Dubuc v. Sirmons

72 O.B.A.J. 1956 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 3, 2001

He must show that the defendants violated clearly established law. . … . § 1983 and hence is immune from suit by operation of the Eleventh Amendment. .

Jones v. Burkett

346 P.2d 338 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 10, 1959

An individual must have a residence somewhere, and when once established, it is presumed to continue until a new one is established; and an individual can have but one domicile or residence at a time. Richardson v. … The question of fact of residence is for the determination of a jury or trial court, and such determination is conclusive upon appeal unless clearly against the weight of the evidence. Burke v.

Hammons v. Muskogee Medical Center Authority

697 P.2d 539 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 1985

The Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act was adopted by our legislature as a conditional encroachment into the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … The initial question the trial court will confront is whether the hospital qualifies as an agency of Muskogee, Oklahoma.

John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.

405 P.3d 681 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 24, 2017

And, here, the class defining language is “actions requiring ... a qualified expert ... to establish breach of the relevant standard of care and that such breach of duty resulted in harm.” 19.1(A). … expert, b. tiie plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies ‘the plaintiff and includes the determination of the expert that, based upon a review of the available material including

Jackson v. Oklahoma Memorial Hospital

909 P.2d 765 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 1995

Jackson brought herself clearly within the common-law parameters of the doctrine. … The trial court clearly erred in giving summary judgment based on the physician’s perceived GTCA-conferred immunity.

Nelson v. Pollay

67 O.B.A.J. 707 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 20, 1996

OMH pressed for summary judgment on three grounds: (a) immunity from liability under the GTCA, (b) Nelson’s failure either to establish any independent negligence by OMH or its employees or (e) to comply with the' Act’s pre-suit … The final provision in § 152(5) 22 clearly takes the employee/teaching-physicians out of the scope of their employment when they are practising medicine — whether for educational or other purposes — yet leaves them within

Kiddy v. City of Oklahoma City

576 P.2d 298 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 7, 1978

Sections 277 and 278, quoted above, clearly established that every deaf-mute, who is charged with the commission of a criminal offense, shall be entitled to the assistance of a qualified interpreter upon arrest. … Rather, they merely establish a means by which State Courts may obtain the assistance of interpreters and compensate them for their services.