Case law

Cherry v. Godard

179 Okla. 158 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1936

purpose of establishing the proper rule to be applied to the' other. … This rule applies to statutes in which the limits of the power are clearly defined.

Gay v. Thomas

5 Okla. 1 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 4, 1896

The power to tax may be exercised oppressively upon persons or with regard to property, but if it do not clearly violate some established rule of limitation, the responsibility of the legislature is not to the courts but … Clearly, these are matters of detail within the legislative discretion and, therefore, of power in the lawmaking body within whose jurisdiction the parties live.

Boston v. Buchanan

75 O.B.A.J. 10 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 2003

After the trial judge conducted the hearing, he dismissed the case impliedly finding the plaintiffs had failed to establish "good cause" why the case should not be dismissed. … The identification of inherent power as that derived from equity and common law is clearly incorrect.

City of McAlester v. Fogg

312 P.2d 867 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1957

The interpretation of the statute established it as a departure from the common law rule that a municipality could only be sued in the county of its situs. … "Such construction should only be adopted where the Legislature has clearly expressed its intention.

Abrams v. Neal

178 Okla. 158 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 20, 1936

Neal was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Melissa J. … Chilcoat, 146 Okla. 62 , 294 P. 119 , this court makes the distinction very clearly.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WEIGEL

321 P.3d 168 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 4, 2014

It is our responsibility to examine the record and assess the credibility and weight of the evidence in order to determine whether it clearly and convincingly establishes professional misconduct by the attorney and, if so … A violation of Rule 1.15(a) is established by the Respondent's failure to hold his clients' property separate from his own property.

Leeper, Graves & Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Hobart

26 Okla. 707 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 12, 1910

Presented, approved and filed, this 30th day of April, 1904/ and the court makes note of the fact that the figures ‘30tlP are not the original figures indicating the day of the month upon which the bond was filed, for it clearly … and in the case at bar the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all things, with the *722 exceptions of the second and third conclusions of law, and the cause is remanded to the trial court to enable plaintiffs to' establish

In Re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672

67 O.B.A.J. 3423 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 5, 1996

Const., are: The Legislature shall pass no law granting to any association, corporation, or individual any exclusive rights, privileges, or immunities within this State. 15 . The terms of § 4(D) of IP 363 are: § 4. … Shall contain language which clearly states that a "yes” vote is a vote in favor of the proposition and a "no” vote is a vote against the proposition; and 7.

Thompson v. Teel

204 Okla. 105 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 1950

He was advised that only a resident of Oklahoma could qualify as administrator or administratrix. At that time, only one member of the family, his niece Laurence Harman, lived in Oklahoma. … The rule relating to actionable fraud is well established in this state. As expressed in Littlefield et al. v.

Abel v. Bachmann

400 P.2d 151 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 2, 1965

Upon Maxy’s return to defendant’s establishment, the subject pump was ordered, and Abel was so informed. … That court’s affirmative answer to this question cannot be regarded as clearly against the weight, or preponderance, of the evidence. The case of Grant v.

Arthur v. Arthur

354 P.2d 199 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 2, 1960

Thus, it is clearly demonstrated that there can be no doubt about what the issues were at the time the order was made denying Charles S. Arthur's application and motion to vacate the dismissal order. … Arthur and Lizzie Kaler are the duly appointed, qualified and acting executors of the estate of J.E.

US BANK, NAT. ASS'N v. Moore

278 P.3d 596 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 10, 2012

Appellants' argument is based on the failure of Appellee to establish Appellee was a person entitled to enforce the Note at the commencement of the action and the inability to establish the effectiveness of the indorsements … We find there is no evidence in the record establishing Appellee had standing to commence this foreclosure action.

Dolese Bros. Co. v. Privett

622 P.2d 1080 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 20, 1981

The clear import of (I) is that to qualify as a private carrier one must: A. Transport persons or property: 1. Not as a common carrier. 2. Not as a contract carrier. However, one may: B. … (d) Laundry and dry cleaning establishments which provide services at one price and charge the customer for delivery service.

ULLMAN v. OKLAHOMA HIGHWAY PATROL

2023 OK 100 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 2023

The OHP attempted to establish that the plaintiffs failed to file suit within 180 days of August 12, 2021, the alleged denial of the claims by OMES. … It was clearly not intended to serve as a notice to trigger the time constraints of the Act. It was not addressed or sent to OMES.

Armstrong v. Letty

85 Okla. 205 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 14, 1922

It is not imperative upon the court to grant in such cases a qualified probate, but this is done as a matter of caution. … It did not establish the testamentary character of the instrument, and give validity to a title based upon it.

Akin v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

69 O.B.A.J. 3512 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 13, 1998

Pre-emption is a well-established legal principle which gives substance to the hierarchy of power established by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, subordinating the laws of the states to those of the … supra, note 13, in which the United States Supreme Court refused to pre-empt all common-law causes of action under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 because to do so would “have the perverse effect of granting complete immunity

Walker v. Group Health Services, Inc.

37 P.3d 749 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 23, 2001

The administrative rule clearly places coverage, eligibility and service related matters associated with the payment of claims within the province of the Grievance Panel. … Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, 987 F.Supp. 1174, 1180 (1997) [Insureds could not sue for bad faith where HMO clearly advised insureds of binding arbitration provision.

Manhattan Const. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

204 Okla. 645 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 23, 1951

S. 1941, which subdivision provides: “An employer, establishing or maintaining a pension trust to provide for the payment of reasonable pensions to his employees, shall be allowed, as a deduction, only the contributions paid … They contend that these provisions are inapplicable to a pension trust insurance contract and that the contract on its face clearly shows that the contract constituted no more than an ordinary paid-up annuity insurance contract

In re Reinstatement of Kerr

345 P.3d 1118 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 3, 2015

There was consistent testimony that Kerr is better qualified now as an attorney than when he graduated from law school. {18 The evidence reflects that Kerr has not engaged in any activity as an attorney since the date of … I am not the selfish person and the arrogant person that I obviously was in 2007 when I committed that act because I clearly didn't think about ramifications outside of myself because I put my family, my wife, my two kids

Edmondson v. State Ex Rel. Phelps

533 P.2d 604 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 1974

City, Okl., 446 P.2d 384 , we held: “The right of a qualified elector to vote and to have his vote counted is basic and fundamental. … The next issue presented concerns our statutory and decisional law governing election contests when it is clearly established that irregularities occurred in the election.