Case law

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.

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.

PAYNE v. KERNS

467 P.3d 659 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 12, 2020

To do so would not only fail to conform to established precedent which refused to construe the OGTCA as providing blanket immunity, but would also render the Constitutional protections afforded the citizens of this State … In short, prisoners must be provided with "some clearly defined method *776 by which they may raise claims of denial of federal rights".

Hall v. Welch

151 Okla. 206 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 22, 1931

petition for writ of prohibition is the proper remedy, and relies on section 27, art. 2, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, which provides as follows: “Any person having knowledge or possession of facts that tend to establish … It is apparent that it is the rule of this jurisdiction that the writ of prohibition should not issue out of this court involving criminal offenses unless it clearly appears from the record that the trial court has no jurisdiction

CDR SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION

2014 OK 31 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2014

CDR timely appealed, and COCA found that CDR's Privileges and Immunities argument was without merit because the U.S. … Supreme Court has held that a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, citing Monell v.

Sharp v. Whitney

170 Okla. 105 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 1934

She left as her sole and only heirs three children, Melson, Mary, and Alex Sharp, the latter two being minors and plaintiffs herein; that Josie Marpiyecher was duly appointed and qualified as guardian of said minor heirs; … That case is clearly distinguishable from this case.

State Ex Rel. Whitson v. Board of Com'rs, Ellis Co.

65 Okla. 273 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1917

After the establishing of stock districts, one-fourth of the legal voters, residents of any stock district so established, may petition in writing the board of county commissioners for an election in such district, at which … In that, they do not clearly show that said stock district existed at the time the petition for an election was filed.” “2.

Lafalier v. LEAD-IMPACTED COMMUNITIES

237 P.3d 181 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 22, 2010

regarding violations of the Open Meeting Act, were "immune from suit." … We do not agree that section 2205 is an invocation of the State's sovereign immunity.

VASQUEZ v. DILLARD'S, INC.

381 P.3d 768 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 13, 2016

' may continue "to provide coverage for workplace injuries under the traditional *778 no-fault workers’ compensation system, now governed by the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA). 18 Employers are provided immunity … [t]he rights and obligations of a qualified employer and its employees shall.be subject to the exclusive remedy provisions of Section 6 of [the AWCA]....” 58 The Legislature has clearly expressed its intent to not allow workers

Howard v. Webb

570 P.2d 42 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 4, 1977

established the nature of the privilege as being freedom from arrest in civil proceedings only. 10 Geo. … Justice Brandeis wrote for the Court: "Clause 1 [of Art I, § 6] defines the extent of the immunity.

Delaney v. Morris

193 Okla. 589 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 8, 1944

The rule is well established, and has been recognized and applied in this state since Northrup v. Eakes, 72 Okla. 66 , 178 P. 266 , and Walters v. … in this particular instance Was so clearly and extremely erroneous and prejudicial as to require reversal.

State Ex Rel. Short v. Riedell

109 Okla. 35 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 21, 1924

create, a monopoly in the business of auditing and accounting; that it attempts to create an association of accountants and auditors to individuals, and to grant thereto individual and exclusive *36 rights, privileges, and immunities … The general principles upon which police power of the state rests, and the purposes of its exercise, are clearly stated ki two paragraphs of Corpus Juris, cited in the plaintiff’s brief.

In Re Initiative Petition No. 362 State Question 669

66 O.B.A.J. 2313 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 11, 1995

Const., provides that the term “qualified elector” includes legislatively imposed exceptions to the right of qualified electors to vote. 5 Thus, the term “qualified elector,” standing alone might be misunderstood to mean … 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.

First Nat. Bank of Seminole v. Henshaw

169 Okla. 49 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 11, 1934

William Mur-dock was duly appointed receiver therein, and is now the duly qualified and acting receiver. … So, it appears to us, from a consideration of the cases above referred to and many others which we do not deem it necessary to cite herein, to be the well-established rule that the petitioners herein are entitled to be sued

Shaw v. Jones

147 Okla. 123 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 29, 1930

The first provision would seem to lay a tax upon any property or interest therein, but this is qualified in the latter provision and clearly defined to be the transfer of tangible property in this state or of intangible property … The inevitable tendency of that view is to disturb good relations among the states and produce the kind of discontent expected to subside after establishment of the Union. The Federalist, No. VII.

Nation v. State Farm Insurance Co.

65 O.B.A.J. 1837 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 17, 1994

PARENTAL IMMUNITY At common law the doctrine of family, or parental, immunity was a defense to lawsuits between spouses and between parents and children. … The readings of Morgan's policy and George's policies must be governed by established legal rules.

Franks v. City of Ponca City

170 Okla. 134 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 1934

The board of commissioners shall have power to establish and maintain a city police department, including a chief of police, and to appoint such policemen as it shall’ deem necessary. “Section 75. … The plaintiff contends that he was a qualified elector within the meaning of those provisions, though he admits that he was not a qualified elector in the city of Ponca City.

Chesney v. Jones

31 Okla. 363 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 20, 1912

His jurisdiction and authority is special and limited, and herein is clearly, defi *366 nitely fixed just the measure of his duty. … The evidence given by the registration books established a certain and ready foundation as a basis, and was doubtless deemed to be the best and the simplest which could be secured.

TULSA STOCKYARDS, INC. v. CLARK

2014 OK 14 · 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.

VASQUEZ v. DILLARD'S, INC.

2016 OK 89 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 13, 2016

employers may continue to provide coverage for workplace injuries under the traditional no-fault workers' compensation system, now governed by the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act (AWCA). 18 Employers are provided immunity … [t]he rights and obligations of a qualified employer and its employees shall be subject to the exclusive remedy provisions of Section 5 of [the AWCA] . . . ." 58 The Legislature has clearly expressed its intent to not allow