Case law

McCarroll v. Doctors General Hospital

664 P.2d 382 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 10, 1983

Upon examination of the medical records, Browne advised Smith of the possibility of a medical negligence claim and recommended that the records be submitted to qualified medical personnel to determine whether a medical negligence … V § 46; and (c) it confers special immunities upon members of the medical profession, in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. V § 51.

Johnson v. Howard

741 P.2d 1386 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 12, 1985

Subsection (e) declares: “No foster care placement may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the … Assuming, but without so deciding, that the Nation was entitled to receive notice in this case, such notice was clearly sufficient.

Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Woodworth

89 Okla. 192 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 13, 1923

If the proviso to section 4 is held to restrain or qualify what precedes, it has no force and effect, and is useless, because there is nothing for it to restrain or qualify. … The natural and proper office of a proviso is to restrain or qualify some preceding matf|sr, and will ordinarily be confined to what precedes it, unless it clearly appears to have been intended to apply to some other matter

Town of Eufaula v. Gibson

22 Okla. 507 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 13, 1908

Hence in our judgment it was proper and necessary to open •the ballot boxes, as the ballots themselves are the best evidence of the ultimate fact to be established. … Our Constitution provides that the county seats established by it “shall be and remain the county seats of their respective counties until changed by vote of the qualified electors of such county.”

Industrial Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Williams

131 Okla. 167 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 5, 1928

The court in the Swoft'ord Case, quoting Cook on Corporations (4th Ed.) sec. 234, says: “During the past few years, however, the great weight of authority has clearly established the rule that, where a supposed corporation … that incorporators, after charter issued, are immune from personal liability.

Rea v. State Ex Rel. Board of Com'rs

29 Okla. 708 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 14, 1911

(3) Is the alleged petition, signed by 15 per cent, of the qualified electors of the proposed road improvement district, the qualified electors of the road improvement district residing within the incorporated towns or cities … per cent, of the expense of said improvement district in the establishment or improving of sucb roads, is that essential?

Glasco v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

188 P.3d 177 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 1, 2008

Constitutional restriction on the Legislature will be strictly construed, and a statute will be upheld against a constitutional attack unless it is clearly and overtly inconsistent with the constitution. … For instance, § 152.1 waives governmental immunity only in the manner provided in the GTCA and § 154 restricts and limits governmental liability.

Oklahoma Press Ass'n v. Piedmont Publishing Co.

628 P.2d 1163 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 28, 1981

to abandon its established facilities, go into the district court and prove why the newspaper can now be reproduced more efficiently in another county. … This is clearly an unreasonable burden to force upon a newspaper.

Manhattan Construction Co. v. District Court of Oklahoma County

517 P.2d 795 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 26, 1973

Manhattan asserts that the uncontrovert-ed facts established through the deposition of Casey, clearly show that Dolese was a subcontractor or independent contractor for Manhattan and therefore was secondarily liable under … The salient question in the case was the determination of the test under Oklahoma law to establish secondary liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Laws.

Walker v. City of Moore

63 O.B.A.J. 1518 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 19, 1992

This is so because a broad interpretation would completely eradicate the government’s general waiver of immunity. … Almost all acts of government employees involve some element of choice and judgment and would thus result in immunity if the discretionary exemption is not narrowly construed.

Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc.

67 O.B.A.J. 2930 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 1, 1996

Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy Dist., 441 P.2d 452, 459 (Okla.1968) (affirmance proper unless judgment clearly against weight of evidence, contrary to law or established principles of equity). … In our view, he was qualified by virtue of a mixture or combination of the five factors.

Rodney D. Watson & Associates, P.C. v. Knight

305 P.3d 1039 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 27, 2013

expert, b. the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies the plaintiff and includes the determination of the expert that, based upon a review of the available material including … 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

Davis v. Davis

708 P.2d 1102 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 25, 1985

Thus, the target of § 60.6 is clearly distinct from that of § 1130. … The legal norms applicable to consentless adoptions are well established. E.g., Wade v.

Hathaway v. State ex rel. Medical Research & Technical Authority

73 O.B.A.J. 1853 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 18, 2002

The State answered, responding affirmatively that: 1) the State was not negligent and therefore not liable; 2) the claim is barred or reduced by the Governmental Tort Claims Act; and, 3) the State is immune from lability … This novel point of procedure was not previously an established legal principle nor is there extant case law from which the legal principle could have been divined.

Silmon v. Rahhal

178 Okla. 244 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 29, 1936

We cannot agree that Congress intended that orders approving deeds should be placed upon a higher level than judgments of courts of general jurisdiction by making them immune to collateral attack even in instances where want … However, by the agreed statement of facts filed in the trial court, the plaintiff, the one seeking to establish the validity of the order, has admitted that the deceased allottee was a resident of Pittsburg county at the

Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt

65 O.B.A.J. 4214 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 20, 1994

We first note that the party invoking a court’s jurisdiction has the burden of establishing his or her standing (when contested) to pursue the action in court. Lujan v. … The Legislature clearly has the authority to grant standing to someone by statute and has done so in other contexts. See e.g. Northwest Datsun v.

Wahpepah v. Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma

939 P.2d 1151 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 21, 1997

Nor is at issue here Tribe’s claimed sovereign immunity from suit. Rather, our focus must be on the rights of the injured claimant against Tribe’s insurer. … Should that element be established on remand and the issue decided in claimant’s favor, the proof will be complete. 20 III.

Matter of Adoption of DMJ

741 P.2d 1386 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 27, 1985

Assuming, but without so deciding, that the Nation was entitled to receive notice in this case, such notice was clearly sufficient. … I would find the hearing determining Dewana eligible for adoption without appellant's consent is clearly within the ambit of the statutory definition of a child custody proceeding.

First of McAlester Corp. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

709 P.2d 1026 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 2, 1985

See also Federal Tax Immunity; Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner; Washington v. United States, 37 Tax Law 375 (1984). … Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819) established the constitutional doctrine of tax immunity derived from the Borrowing and Supremacy Clauses that, “States may not impose taxes directly on the Federal Government

Williams v. City of Norman

85 Okla. 230 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 27, 1921

The former establishes a rule regulating and governing in matters or transactions occurring after its passage. … W'e are clearly of the opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the trial court, and the same is thttrefore affirmed. HARRISON, O. X, and MILLER, ELTING, KENNAMER, and NICHOLSON, JX, eon-cun.