Case law

Whitley v. Oologah Independent School District No. I-4 of Rogers County

741 P.2d 455 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 24, 1987

Appellees contended the procedural guidelines set forth by 51 O.S. 1981 § 151 et. seq. had not been followed and the suit was thus barred by sovereign immunity. … This provision is clearly directed at the cause of action and is not a general limitations provision.

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Sullivan

596 P.2d 864 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 30, 1979

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978), in considering the scope of a judge’s immunity from damages liability when sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 said: “The governing principle of law is well established … long-established principle.

Zeier v. Zimmer, Inc.

152 P.3d 861 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 2006

Those questions are clearly and definitely established by our fundamental law to a certainty as functions of the legislative department. 19 We uphold the legislative enactment unless the statute is clearly, palpably and plainly … expert, b. the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies the plaintiff and includes the expert's determination that, based upon a review of the available medical records, facts

Martin v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co.

918 P.2d 49 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 23, 1996

Clearly, there must be a tortfeasor, someone who has committed a wrong from which the insured has suffered damage, before uninsured motorist coverage can come into play. … In both of those cases there was a tortfeasor, but a statute immunized him from liability for conduct that otherwise would have been actionable.

Secrest v. Secrest

146 Okla. 235 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 1, 1930

In these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that appellant has shown good cause for delay and waived no rights he may have under the will. … (Ky.) 177, it is said: “When one named executor qualifies as administrator, he may, upon proof of the will, qualify as executor — the act of qualifying as administrator was no renunciation of his right to qualify as executor

Oklahoma City Municipal Improvement Authority v. HTB, Inc.

769 P.2d 131 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 9, 1989

Established principles of Oklahoma law differ, and in making such a determination the Oklahom court has focused not upon the function performed, but the ultimate right at issue. … OCMIA’s original purpose clearly contemplated a nationwide range of rights affected by water delivery.

City of Ponca City v. Edwards

460 P.2d 418 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 30, 1969

This action is clearly within the meaning of Section 161. … Sections 546.1 to 546.14, approval of the establishment of such municipal parking facility must be received by a majority of the qualified voters of the City, voting therefor, at an election called in accordance with the

SPENCER v. NELSON

557 P.3d 144 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 17, 2024

It has long been established that immunity under the GTCA does not extend to governmental employees "who acted in a willful or wanton manner." Holman By and Through Holman v. … Because the GTCA is in derogation of the State's sovereignty, it "will not be construed to divest the [S]tate of its immunities unless the intention to do so is clearly expressed." Gurley v.

Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma

957 P.2d 81 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 13, 1998

I dissent, because: 1) the Tribe did not clearly waive its sovereign immunity; 2) Oklahoma has not met the congressionally imposed conditions necessary to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian tribes and nations … Any case involving a contract or compact when the tribe has clearly and unequivocally waived its sovereign immunity by: a. A resolution adopted by the governing body of the tribe, or b.

CRAWFORD v. OSU MEDICAL TRUST

510 P.3d 824 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 22, 2022

. § 164 ¶24 This conclusion is consistent with the Legislature's limited waiver of sovereign immunity. … The court held that it did, because minors are clearly restrained in their ability to provide self-care or to fully manage their own property.

Uhrina v. Mastako

100 Okla. 294 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 23, 1924

Keith, a member of the bar of Pittsburg county, was duly chosen and qualified to hear said cause as special judge. … At the conclusion of the said hearing the court made and entered the following finding of fact and judgment as follows: “It is the finding of the court that the contestant has failed to establish the fact that any property

In Re Supreme Court Adjudication of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition in Tulsa

597 P.2d 1208 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 3, 1979

Briefly stated, the initiative petition is directed to establishing a minimum number of police officers at the national average per 1,000 of population and setting salaries for these personnel at not less than the average … The matter dealt with in this petition is not a legislative matter, but clearly involves administrative discretion.

Porter v. Commissioners of Kingfisher County

6 Okla. 550 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 12, 1898

When separate schools are established as provided in this act, the.term of school shall be the same i:i each school year, and shall be brovided with equal school facilities. .* * *554 “Sec. 9. … These provisions are clearly within the inhibitions declared by the constitutional amendment and acts of congress just quoted. In McKay v. Cambell, 16 Fed.

Deanda v. AIU Insurance

98 P.3d 1080 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 20, 2004

. ¶ 4 These facts give a context to the certified question, and establish that the answer to the question may be determinative of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court. 20 O.S.2001, § 1602. … This principle was clearly contemplated by the Legislature when it enacted the penalty provision for failure to timely pay awarded benefits, 85 O.S.2001 § 42 (18% interest). [1] ¶ 6 While the Legislature has provided this

State Ex Rel. Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital v. Reed

493 P.2d 815 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1972

State Hospital contends that Section 115, supra, establishes liability of a husband or his estate for hospital care and treatment of his wife. … Clearly this is an expression of the legislative concern for the expediting and disposing of administration of estates without delay.

Jones v. Denton

192 Okla. 234 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1942

S. 1941 § 61, the burden was on contestants to establish its invalidity according to the allegations of their pleading. … While the rule is that one offering a will for probate always has the burden of establishing the will, this rule does not apply to contests on wills after probate. In 68 C.

Consolidated School Dist. No. 72 v. Board of Ed.

113 Okla. 217 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 8, 1925

expresses the legislative intent, which is the thing sought to be established in the construction o>f all statutes, and needs no construction other than it simply means what it says. … The filing of a petition signed by at least one-third of the qualified electors of such district and the giving of 20 days notice are clearly jurisdictional facts.

Aircraft Equipment Co. v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma

939 P.2d 1143 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 21, 1997

(Citations omitted) 498 U.S. at 510 [ 111 S.Ct. at 910 ] Then after discussing Congress's consistent reluctance to undercut tribal sovereign immunity it said: Under these circumstances, we are not disposed to modify the long-established … This paragraph clearly shows that in lawsuits against Indian tribes a right does not necessarily carry with it a complete remedy, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Finley v. State ex rel. Department of Highways

377 P.2d 596 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 30, 1962

Oklahoma City, 195 Okl. 305 , 157 P.2d 174 , we said that when a condemnor has established the right to take land by eminent domain the burden of proof is on the defendant owner to establish the value of the property taken … disturbed unless it clearly appears this discretion has been abused.

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. City Vending of Muskogee, Inc.

63 O.B.A.J. 2287 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1992

The Commission may have indeed exceeded its taxing power by including in the contested assessment transactions that qualify as federally exempt intratribal sales. … This statutory scheme should be administered to preserve the established exemptions.