Case law

Fenwick v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary

792 P.2d 60 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 15, 1990

In fact, the Act has been amended annually since the establishment of this rule. In Lekan v. … We are not free to bestow greater immunity from liability on employers or greater benefits on employees than the statute allows.

MAXWELL v. SPRINT PCS

369 P.3d 1079 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 12, 2016

Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence; 6. ' Arbitrary or capricious; T. … The: Claimant qualified for the maximum rate of temporary total disability compensation, but Goodyear paid the claimant her regular wages, which were at a higher rate than that required by statute.

Coyle v. Smith

28 Okla. 121 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 1911

All acts of the Legislature must be sustained by the courts, unless they are clearly and undoubtedly repugnant to the Constitution. … The better opinion would clearly be that Congress could not impose as an obligation upon a state at the time of its admission into the Union such a restriction as it had no original power to enact or enforce.”

Wolfe v. Killingsworth

87 Okla. 170 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 14, 1922

Guy Outlip, the duly qualified and acting referee in the above entitled action, and makes this, his report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. “1st. I find that O. … Dale Wolfe was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting trustee in bankruptcy of G. F. Killingsworth, bankrupt. “2nd. I find that on March 14, 1913, said G.

Dawkins v. Billingsley

69 Okla. 259 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 9, 1918

that the trial court should not have sustained the demurrer to the evidence, while the defendant in error contends that, inasmuch as there was no malice upon the part of the defendant below, and the publication being a qualified … The evidence here clearly established that the words written by the defendant below concerning the plaintiff were defamatory, and, the same being within the class designated as a privileged publication, the evidence was sufficient

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Dawson Produce Co.

180 Okla. 119 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 18, 1937

It is not conclusive as to facts which are not in issue or not determined in the former action, and if the facts through which the indemnitee claims indemnity were not litigated or clearly determined they may be litigated … Its determination of that question is now final and immune from collateral attack. In the briefs the case of Maryland Casualty Co. v. Whitt, 167 Okla. 261 , 29 P. (2d) 65 , is mentioned.

Vinson v. Medley

737 P.2d 932 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 19, 1987

At trial it was established that the proposed well site was situated adjacent to the Hardy Acres housing addition where the homeowner resided. … A granted variance will be accorded great weight and will not be disturbed when it has been affirmed on appeal by a district court unless it is clearly arbitrary or erroneous.

Oklahoma City v. Prieto

482 P.2d 919 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 1, 1971

All other parts of the 1965 Act refer to “governmental function” and “governmental immunity.” … Article 5, § 57, of the Oklahoma Constitution provides in part that “Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, * * *.”

Dade v. State

188 Okla. 677 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 29, 1941

establish that the defendant not merely acquiesced in the search but that he specifically, unequivocally, and actively consented to it. … The trier of facts should be slow in finding intentional and voluntary relinquishment of immunity from search without a warrant when from the evidence the matter is somewhat in doubt. United States v.

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

562 P.2d 511 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 1977

We note the Code in DR 2-106(A) provides: “A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.” … However, it is our further order that Respondent be suspended thereafter until he shall affirmatively show that he is in all respects again able and qualified to resume his position as a member of the Bar of this State and

Coker v. Brown

206 Okla. 88 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 26, 1952

Looney’s testimony on' this ground or in fact on • any other ground, except that he had not known' the testatrix for.a. sufficient length-'of time -to qualify .him to testify ■■ as - to, her mental competency, and a'further … court was not clearly against the weight of the evidence, but is amply supported thereby.

Dye v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola

230 P.3d 507 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2009

the Indian tribe has clearly consented to suit in state court or waived tribal immunity. … Immunity is waived for prize claim disputes and procedures are set forth much like tort claims.

Loggins v. Wetumka General Hospital

587 P.2d 455 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 28, 1978

Only claimant testified license from emergency medical training would qualify the licensee to perform this duty. … Thus, injuries occasioned thereby clearly arise out of and in course of employment. The issue is discussed at length in Richey, supra.

Byers v. Byers

618 P.2d 930 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1980

The doctrine of equitable adoption is clearly inapposite. … It requires evidence of a binding contract for adoption whose existence must be established by clear and convincing proof. 7 No offer was made to show facts tending to establish a contract amounting to an equitable adoption

McInturff v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Transmission Co.

475 P.2d 160 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 23, 1970

Clearly, it meets the same rule as stated in a slightly different way in Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company v. Kelly et al. (1936), 177 Okl. 206 , 58 P.2d 328 ; Grand River Dam Authority v. … Her evidence does not even establish the minimum amount of damages for which she would, as a matter of law, be entitled to judgment.

Williams v. Continental Const. Corp.

168 Okla. 510 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 26, 1934

foreign corporations to do business within the state, and with the duty of the supervision in many respects of all corporations, both domestic and foreign, doing business within the state, was likely influenced by what clearly … Inasmuch as section 31, article 9, of the Constitution clearly contemplates that such foreign corporations may, by compliance with the laws of the state, acquire the right of *513 eminent domain, and inasmuch as the corporation

Smoot v. Baker

194 Okla. 540 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 21, 1944

After the petition was filed the plaintiffs applied to the court for the appointment of a receiver, and a receiver was appointed and qualified. … Inter-Ocean Oil & Gas Co., 52 Okla. 490 , 153 P. 115 , while this power is statutory in Oklahoma, “... in deciding questions arising under this head, the court must look for guidance to the established usages and customs

Clinton v. State Ex Rel. Logan County Election Board

72 O.B.A.J. 1933 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 26, 2001

Second, plaintiff must establish he or she is an at-will employee and the reason for his or her discharge violates the identified Oklahoma public policy goal. … Const. 19 The States are entirely free to protect the right of expression with greater solicitude and within a wider dimensional range of immunity than the shield available under the U.S.

FARLEY v. CITY OF CLAREMORE

465 P.3d 1213 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 5, 2020

defenses is raised in this appeal. 43 An appellee may raise a legal issue in support of the correctness of the trial court's judgment and the relief actually granted when the issue is supported by the record on appeal. 44 Clearly … City of Moore , 1990 OK CIV APP 76 , 802 P.2d 1292, 1293 (notice and filing provisions of Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act are essential to the establishment to a cause of action and absent compliance therewith sovereign

Allen v. Trimmer, County Treasurer

45 Okla. 83 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 17, 1914

This allotment to the freedmen is, however, qualified by the further provision that the lands so allotted shall be held and used by the freedmen until their rights under the treaty shall be determined, in such manner as shall … Clearly the extent of this proposed allotment to the freedmen was only the right to hold and use 40 acres of land dependent upon the future action of Congress.