Case law

In Re Shipman's Estate

184 Okla. 56 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 22, 1938

by words which clearly show that said expression referred only to his incompetency. … There is not sufficient evidence to establish “undue influence” as defined by the courts in probate cases.

Parmenter v. Ray, County Judge

58 Okla. 27 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 6, 1916

Prior to the service of the writ of certiorari, said Conner gave bond and duly qualified as special, administrator. … But the motion asking the court for such order and judgment was regularly submitted to it, and was clearly within its jurisdiction to decide, and, this being so, its judgment thereon cannot be annulled by means of the writ

Catron v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa

434 P.2d 263 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 25, 1967

The evidence failed to show that the repudiation of the plaintiff’s interest was ever withdrawn or qualified, but reflects that the conduct of Mr. … As no action to establish a trust was commenced within five years of the date that the plaintiff was clearly informed by Mr. Catron that she had no rights of ownership, her recovery is barred by 12 O.S.1961, § 95(7).

Exchange Trust Co. v. Oklahoma State Bank of Ada

126 Okla. 193 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 1927

The receiver must qualify, proceed with the discharge of his duties, ask and receive directions from the court, make his final report, and secure an order of discharge to be relieved from his duties'. … established the insufficiency of the value of the property to discharge the mortgage debt of the Exchange.

THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE ALCOHOL POLICY v. STATE ex rel. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LAWS ENFORCEMENT COMM.

2020 OK 5 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 22, 2020

"In assessing the conformity of a challenged state statute to our fundamental law, we are guided by well-established principles. The Constitution is the bulwark to which all statutes must yield." Liddell v. … Const. art 5 §51 provides: The Legislature shall pass no law granting to any association, corporation, or individual any exclusive rights, privileges, or immunities within this State. 18 The Okla.

Darrough v. First Nat. Bank of Claremore

56 Okla. 647 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 7, 1916

marshals * * * in' case the courts shall find it absolutely necessary, for the preservation of estates, to take charge of the property of bankrupts after the filing of the petition and until it is dismissed or the trustee is qualified … bare fact of that possession under claim and color of that authority, without respect to the ultimate right to be asserted otherwise and elsewhere, as already sufficiently explained, that furnishes to the officer complete immunity

THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE ALCOHOL POLICY v. STATE ex rel. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LAWS ENFORCEMENT COMM.

2020 OK 5 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 22, 2020

"In assessing the conformity of a challenged state statute to our fundamental law, we are guided by well-established principles. The Constitution is the bulwark to which all statutes must yield." Liddell v. … Const. art 5 §51 provides: The Legislature shall pass no law granting to any association, corporation, or individual any exclusive rights, privileges, or immunities within this State. 18 The Okla.

Childers v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., ETC.

645 P.2d 992 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 20, 1981

I Part II of the trial court's decision is clearly beyond the reach of this court's reviewing power. … Part I of the trial court's decision cannot qualify as "a final judgment".

Turner v. Porter

106 Okla. 180 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 1924

Berry executrix and executor respectively, they being named as such in the will, who thereupon immediately qualified and entered upon the discharge .of their duties. … Under the rule announced in the case just cited, we are clearly of the opinion that the trial court was right in sustaining the demurrer interposed to the evidence of the contestant at tUe conclusion of her testimony and

Burch v. Allstate Insurance Co.

977 P.2d 1057 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 5, 1999

This clearly is contemplated by § 3636. … Our use of the term "primary coverage" to describe the relationship between multiple UM carriers did not clearly establish that UM coverage was primary in circumstances such as those presented in the instant case.

In re the Adoption of M.J.S.

162 P.3d 200 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 22, 2007

It further impacts the Court's determination that the Petitioners were morally and ethically qualified to be considered as potential adoptive parents. … Ensure and promote the best interests of the child in adoption and to establish an orderly and expeditious process for movement of adoption matters through the courts ..."

State Ex Rel. State Bank Com'r v. Martin

177 Okla. 490 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 5, 1936

The intention was to protect more adequately the creditors of these institutions, and to take from their pi'oprietors, to a qualified extent, the shield afforded by the corporate personality in which their individual ownership … Clearly, section 9216, supra, was applicable to defendant below, under the general view applied to liability of stockholders of banks and trust companies.

H. F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Jamison

199 Okla. 691 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 2, 1948

His written application for employment stated his occupation to be1 that of a mechanic and it was stated that other work for which he was qualified was that of a gas engine operator. … The second and last sentences of the paragraph clearly have reference to extraordinary risks. In reference to extraordinary risks, this court in Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v.

Foshee v. Foshee

247 P.3d 1162 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 7, 2010

On appeal, this Court will not disturb the trial court's judgment regarding custody absent an abuse of discretion or a finding that the decision is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. … Moore, 2009 OK CIV APP 27, ¶ 12 , 209 P.3d 318 the court determined that where evidence established parents could not cooperate, joint custody was properly terminated.

Gleason v. Wood, County Treasurer

28 Okla. 502 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 1911

Where it exists, it is to be rigidly scrutinized, and never permitted to 'extend, either in scope or duration, beyond what the terms of the concession clearly require. … If a different intent had existed, it would doubtless have been clearly manifested by the language employed.

State Ex Rel. Reirdon v. County Court of Marshall County

183 Okla. 274 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 21, 1938

The wife was mentally incompetent and did not qualify as an executor. Her two brothers died, one in 1928 and the other in 1932. … It is well established that mandamus will not be granted to compel a court to act in causes between private parties where the party complaining has an adequate remedy at law. Southwestern Nat. Gas Co. v.

City of Chickasha v. Foster

173 Okla. 217 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 4, 1935

A limitation was provided as to .valuation and a requirement was made for a % vote of the qualified voters voting at an election held for the purpose. Other restrictions were imposed. … Thus in our decision we are bound by the general rule: “Municipalities cannot issue bonds or other like securities unless the power to do so is conferred by legislative authority, either express or clearly implied, and any

Southwest Stone Company v. Washington

381 P.2d 872 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 7, 1963

In that case the trial tribunal initially denied an award upon its finding that claimant had not lost the requisite number of work days to qualify for statutory compensation. … In a subsequent proceeding on a change in condition claimant succeeded in establishing compensable disability and was granted an award..

Dunham v. Jackson

349 P.2d 737 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 16, 1960

Again we are confronted with another one of our well established rules stated in the body of the opinion in Bates v. … The defendants did not produce a disinterested, qualified building and repair contractor to state that said work was done in a “workmanlike manner.”

Roberts v. Merrill

386 P.2d 780 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 5, 1963

While the 1950 amendment did qualify the latter inhibition, it left the former intact and unaffected. … A similar time bar was tei-med by the California Supreme Court to be “in the nature of a qualifying condition in the exercise of any right to death benefits.” See, Ruiz v.