Case law

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

BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF OKLAHOMA v. Baker

638 P.2d 464 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1981

Likewise, the constitution establishes the independence of the University and curtails legislative power over University affairs. … The determination of faculty salaries is clearly an integral part of the power to govern the University and a function essential in preserving the independence of the Board.

Grantham v. City of Chickasha

156 Okla. 56 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 16, 1932

Thomas, 89 Okla. 188 , 214 P. 1070 , is well established and sustained by the aforesaid authorities, but contend that the converse of this rule is also well established that a prosecution for violation of a municipal ordinance … a definition which would include persons or principles not clearly within the terms of the act granting such power.” . .

Berman v. Laboratory Corp. of America

268 P.3d 68 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 20, 2011

If so, then well-established case law extends a privilege to evidence offered during that proceeding and provides immunity to LabCorp from Berman's suit. … However, the facts of this case are insufficient to invoke the privilege under § 1448.1. 111 In Kirschstein we clearly expressed the parameters of the § 1448.1 privilege and its application to the other claims raised therein

Travelers Insurance Companies v. Dickey

61 O.B.A.J. 2719 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 16, 1990

The agreement clearly is ineffective to exonerate the contractor from liability for negligently inflicted harm to the owner’s interior property. … Part 6(c) of the policy clearly operates to preserve the insured’s rights under the policy despite any prior-to-loss “release” the insured may have signed.

Henley v. Henley

428 P.2d 258 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 9, 1967

Although the record does not necessarily establish that wife is unemployable and will remain unemployable, it does establish that she will require continued medication for her epilepsy. … For more than twenty-two years while she was married she was not employed outside the home and the evidence does not disclose that she is qualified to perform any particular form of employment.

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

Shoffner v. Smith

155 Okla. 43 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 1, 1931

Most clearly the approval of the contract in a case of this character calls for discretion of the highest order. … The office of superintendent of public instruction for a county is clearly perpetuated in article 17, sec. 2, of the Constitution. Section 10311, C. O.

Young v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.

743 P.2d 1084 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 6, 1987

In Beavin, 8 this Court did make inquiry into the intent of the Legislature in enacting 47 O.S. 1981 § 7-601, and stated: From the language of § 7-601, the Legislature has clearly established a comprehensive compulsory liability … Martin, 676 P.2d 1366 (Okla.1984) where this Corut abrogated the rule of parental immunity on policy grounds very similar to the Court’s reasoning in Mutal of Enumclaw v.

Kurn v. Margolin

187 Okla. 135 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 26, 1940

The instruction, as given, reads as follows: “You are instructed that under the evidence in this case the plaintiff is the duly appointed, qualified and acting administrator of the estate of the deceased, John Washington, … We find nothing in the record before us tending to clearly show passion, partiality, prejudice, or corruption as actuating in any respect the awards made.

Architectural Building Components Corp. v. Comfort

528 P.2d 307 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 5, 1974

The test or requirement of “minimum contacts” that a defendant must have maintained or established in the state or forum of the plaintiff’s choice is such that the maintenance of a suit based thereon *309 does not offend … Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenience or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.

White v. Infield

122 Okla. 4 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 21, 1926

The tax assessors now acting id qualified in said county shall hold of-e until their successors are duly elected, the regular election to be held in said unty in 1928, and qualified, and that there-Ter, all assessors in said … Clearly he was notified in June that his attempted filing for the office of county assessor was rejected.

In Re Everhart's Estate

208 Okla. 101 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 10, 1953

The will was duly admitted to probate in the county court of Blaine county, Oklahoma, and the surviving wife, Alva Everhart (now Marks), appellant herein, qualified as executrix. … She would clearly have enjoyed all of his estate as long as she lived had she not remarried. The bequests to her were in paragraph (1) and the opening sentences of paragraph (2) of the will.

Sulsberger & Sons Co. v. Castleberry

40 Okla. 613 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 17, 1914

Clearly-plaintiff’s injury was not caused by any changing condition dt\e to the prosecution of the work, and he was not engaged in making an unsafe place safe. … Labatt (3 Labatt’s Master and Servant, sec. 924), “it cannot be intended to concede this unqualified immunity to the master. Such a view is expressly repudiated in many cases, and impliedly so in many others.”

Baughman v. Weicker

136 Okla. 33 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 26, 1929

‘‘As Governmental or Municipal — In General : “While in a general sense the functions of municipal corporations are all of a public natur'e, it is well recognized and generally established that a municipal corporation acts … Hence, it is an established’ rule in the exposition of statutes that the intention of the lawgiver is to be deduced from a view of the whole, and of every part of a statute taken and compared together.” 25 R. C.

HILL v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE

423 P.3d 1119 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 26, 2018

A statute will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with the Constitution. Id. … He asserts that mandatory use of the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, is an arbitrarily-designed employer immunity that shifts the economic loss to an innocent injured employee.

Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company v. Maggi

409 P.2d 369 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 21, 1965

Both the witnesses were qualified to express an opinion as to the value of land. Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Harvey, 44 Okl. 321 , 144 P. 581 . … will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that this discretion has been abused.

State Ex Rel. Rucker v. Tapp

380 P.2d 260 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 19, 1963

On the other hand, if the phrase “in every county” had not been repeated in part (b), but was omitted therefrom, no county could qualify for the establishment of a superior court unless it fell into all three classifications … Since we have determined that Oklahoma County and Kay County do not qualify for a superior court under existing laws, considerable confusion will be created in the minds of litigants concerning the status of cases which have

Private Truck Council of America, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

806 P.2d 598 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 5, 1991

I, § 8, cl. 3, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1. … B & L was not adopted by the Supreme Court, nor did it establish a new binding principle of law so as to constitute a clear change in Commerce Clause jurisprudence as established by previous Supreme Court decisions.

Of School District No. 9 v. Jones

193 Okla. 9 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 11, 1943

With reference to consolidated districts, our Legislature provided: “A special meeting of the voters of any two or more adjacent school districts or parts of districts or territory, may be called for the purpose of establishing … Without a clearly expressed intention to the contrary, we cannot presume the Legislature intended to violate or abrogate its clearly expressed intention throughout the course of its legislation on the subject.