Case law

Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

305 P.3d 1004 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 2013

Therefore, we find the first Mendoza-Martinez factor clearly favors a punitive effect. 2. … And the duration of the reporting requirement is keyed not to any determination of a particular offender's risk of reoffending, but to whether the offense of conviction qualified as aggravated.

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. McElreath

69 Okla. 9 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 6, 1917

Unless claims are so made, the carrier shall not be lia- > * * * “The decisions also established that the question as to the proper construction of the bill of lading is a federal question. … . * * * When the goods have been misdelivered, there is as *12 clearly a 'failure to make delivery’ as when the goods have been lost or destroyed; and it is quite as competent in the one case as in the other for the parties

Strubhart v. Perry Memorial Hospital Trust Authority

903 P.2d 263 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 23, 1995

This established the concept that a hospital had an independent responsibility to patients to supervise the medical treatment provided by members of its medical staff. … completely rejected the doctrine as a matter of its common law jurisprudence, although the Kansas Supreme Court has, at least, partially rejected the doctrine based on a specific legislative enactment granting hospitals immunity

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Bank of Spencer

53 Okla. 398 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 11, 1916

Commissioner Hall said: “Jurisdiction over these cable rates is clearly conferred upon us by the act to regulate commerce and is admitted of record by counsel for defendant.” … R. 306, a decision in no way qualified by Western U. Telegraph Co. v. Commercial Mill Co., 218 U. S. 406 (31 Sup. Ct. 59), 54 L. Ed. 1088 (36 L. R. A. [N. S.] 220, 21 Ann. Cas. 815).”

Battle v. Mason

293 P.2d 324 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 6, 1955

To grant con7 testants’ request that the question be decided by only a part of the court or a particular group of justices would clearly be in violation of the constitution and statutes of this state. … Contestants’ motions directed at preventing duly qualified and acting justices of this court from participating in this case are therefore denied.

Thomas v. Holliday by and Through Holliday

764 P.2d 165 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 25, 1988

The evidence clearly warranted the instruction on contributory negligence, which the trial court gave, but not one on risk assumption. … Express consent, which might also be called "waiver” or "release,” will usually bar recovery by the plaintiff unless there is a statute or established public policy against it. Murray v.

Ramsey v. Leeper

168 Okla. 43 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 12, 1933

Water supplies previously established may become by future development and progress insufficient. … “The word ‘owner’ standing alone, signifies absolute owner, or owner in fee simple not a qualified or limited estate in the land. Phillips v. Hardenburg, 80 S.

SPENCER v. WYRICK

2017 OK 19 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 7, 2017

This proceeding is clearly a collateral attack by a private individual and is not permitted. ¶3 This Court possesses original jurisdiction to issue writs of quo warranto per 12 O.S. 2011 § 1532 and to issue writs of prohibition … At the conclusion of this stage, the Commission nominates the three applicants it has determined to be best qualified. ¶6 The second stage of the constitutional selection process is conducted by the Governor.

McIntosh v. Dill

86 Okla. 1 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 7, 1922

The executrix qualified as such in the state of New Hampshire, but did not so qualify in Rhode Island, but went into the state of Rhode Island and negotiated a private sale of the real estate located in Rhode Island. … “This last clause indicated very clearly what the author did mean by ‘curing defects in legal proceedings) where they do not extend to matters of jurisdiction.’

Turk v. Kramer

138 Okla. 35 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1929

Thereafter Wilson qualified as such assignee and took possession of the property covered by the chattel mortgage, whereupon plaintiffs commenced the present action in replevin, wherein Kramer and wife and V. P. … So that the filing of such mortgage is clearly not equivalent to taking possession of the property with the consent of the mortgagor. In re Kramer Merc.

House of Realty, Inc. v. City of Midwest City

76 O.B.A.J. 9 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 21, 2004

The record clearly shows that the Hospital Authority is planning to purchase land for the purpose of providing the land for retail activities by others and be compensated from those retail activities. … The Trust states that it was formed “to create and establish a trust ... to finance, operate, construct and administer hospital facilities, ...” O.R. at 486, Article 1(1).

ALLEN v. HARRISON

2016 OK 44 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 19, 2016

However, Physician testified that he was not qualified to perform an endoscopic or other surgical procedure to extract the nail. … Clearly, Physician's recommenced course of treatment to "eat fiber and let the nail pass" falls under the "any other means of any nature whatsoever, for the cure, relief, palliation, adjustment or correction of any human

Lee v. Wilson

138 Okla. 115 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 10, 1929

Street, deceased, and Allen Street and the American National Bank of Oklahoma Oity were appointed administrators and executors of said estate and duly qualified as such. … Street, deceased, dated Del cember 3. 1920. duly proved and admitted to probate by the county court of Oklahoma county March 2. 1925. be and the same is hereby established as the last will and tes *116 tament of J. G.

Mattoon v. City of Norman

633 P.2d 735 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 27, 1981

Mattoon has alleged a taking in the constitutional sense, and that claim stands established as the settled law of the case by our opinion in Mattoon I. … If the trial judge did in fact fail to properly analyze, within the parameters allowed by our statutes, 31 the facts and materials placed before her, appellant Mattoon has not clearly demonstrated error.

State Ex Rel. Standeven v. Armstrong

27 Okla. 810 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 10, 1911

On this point the court said: “The county of Pawnee was established in 1868. Gen. St. 243, 57. … Speaking of an objection to his bond and his consequent right to said property, the court said: “Prima facie, however, the bonds under which he qualified were sufficient.

Bd. of Regents, Etc. v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

561 P.2d 499 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1977

been granted. 4 An action for injunction is one of equitable cognizance and this Court will consider all the evidence on appeal. 5 The granting of injunctive relief will not be reversed on appeal unless the trial court clearly … Detroit Edison Co., 428 U.S. 579 , 96 S.Ct. 3110 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1976) the United States Supreme Court held that the state action exemption was applicable only to the state itself or to state officers seeking immunity

Stroud v. Arthur Andersen & Co.

72 O.B.A.J. 3647 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 2001

reconcile the accounting discrepancy/error once it was pointed out to them [see TR. pgs. 504-507, 526]; (3) Bruce Botwin, plaintiffs' expert witness, outlined for the jury certain acts of the defendant which he viewed as clearly … All parties agreed that plaintiffs' expert was well qualified. . Hardesty v. Andro Corp.-Webster Div., 1976 OK 129 , 555 P.2d 1030, 1035 [disapproved of on other grounds]; Southwest Ice & Dairy Prods. v.

Simpson v. Campbell

391 P.2d 245 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 26, 1963

Campbell, who were president and secretary, respectively, of The Forty-First Street Corporation, and owned all of its stock except the qualifying shares, entered into an oral arrangement with the afore-named Mr. … Also the evidence failed to establish any direct communication, or representation, from Max W.

TOCH, LLC v. CITY OF TULSA

474 P.3d 859 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 29, 2020

It clearly does not. … "A classification is not a prohibited, special law if it establishes a reasonable classification of persons, entities or things, sharing the same circumstances." City of Bethany v.

Matter of SC

833 P.2d 1249 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 7, 1992

Clearly, Father fits this definition. However, Section 1914 qualifies the definition of "parent" in the instance where attempt is being made to invalidate a foster placement. … The qualifying language is "from whose custody such child is removed."