Case law

Lyons v. Fulsom

54 Okla. 84 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 14, 1915

Broaddus was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting guardian of plaintiff, a minor; that on January 25, 1908, one Louis Fulsom was duly appointed guardian of the person and estate of the plaintiff by the county court of … It is evident from the record before us that the original letters of guardianship were offered in evidence and considered by the court; and in our opinion such evidence was clearly competent to establish the appointment of

Ethics Commission v. Cullison

64 O.B.A.J. 978 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1993

[I]t ought to be used on all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one. " State v. … The cause before us clearly meets the law's justiciability requirement. Two high-level organs of state government are running on a collision course.

Burton v. Colley

113 Okla. 265 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 29, 1925

of the Indian Territory had authority to appoint a guardian or curator of an estate of a minor, located in that district, although the domicile of the minor was in the Central District, and a guardian so appointed, when qualified … This, being an action in ejectment, is clearly a collateral attack on the validity of the LeFlore county guardianship. This court in Pettis v.

Lewis v. State Ex Rel. Martin

179 Okla. 465 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 23, 1937

The officers above designated shall serve for a period of two years and until their successors are elected and qualified. … “The court has further held that where two statutes cover in who’e or in part the same matter and 'are not absolutely irreconcilable, the duty of the court — no purpose to repeal being clearly expressed or indicated —is,

Fent v. STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA TAX COM'N

99 P.3d 241 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 6, 2004

The legislature has the power to establish classes of taxpayers possessing varied deductions from income for purposes of computing state income tax liability. Id. … See, for example, 68 O.S. 2001 § 2357.33, the tax credit for immunization against Hepatitis A.

Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Ry. Co. v. Doneghy

207 Okla. 346 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1952

“To Have and to Hold the premises hereby conveyed together with all the improvements thereon and appurtenances and immunities thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining forever and warrant and title to the same. … The case plainly indicates that the nature of the estate in an ambiguous deed may be established by parol or extrinsic evidence. Defendant also cites Stinson v. Oklahoma Ry. Co., 190 Okla. 624 , 126 P. 2d 260 .

Waugh v. Dibbens

61 Okla. 221 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 11, 1916

The court instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants, on the ground that the proof failed to establish a cause of action against them. … From these eases and those collated in the notes thereto, it is obvious that upon existence or nonexistence of jurisdiction and not upon malice or corruption, rests the question of immunity from liabiliity from acts done

Anderson v. Whitener

127 Okla. 284 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 26, 1927

of an agreement to the contrary, every partner is entitled to take part in the management of its business, and in case of a difference of opinion as to such management, the majority governs. ” We think these instructions clearly … Latimer: Object to his reading from the instrument until he has qualified the witness, and the instrument is identified and offered in evidence and submitted to us. The Court: Sustained, unless the witness is qualified.

Carl v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma

577 P.2d 912 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 11, 1978

In the alternative, appellee contends that if it is determined that the Admissions Board is subject to such law, the law is discriminatory, denies equal protection of the laws and constitutes a clearly unwarranted governmental … This is because it has no rights, privileges and immunities pro-tectable under the Federal or State Constitutions. Substantive due process and equal protection guarantees run to “persons”, not the state.

Green v. Hight

194 Okla. 214 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 1944

She does not argue that Elnora Hight was unfit to be appointed, but contends that she is disqualified from acting as such guardian by reason of the fact that she is the duly qualified and acting administratrix of the estate … We are committed tó the rule that in order to deprive a parent of the custody of a minor child the evidence must clearly establish the unfitness of the parent and that the welfare of the child requires it.

Keating v. Edmondson

72 O.B.A.J. 3672 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 2001

DAY TIME FRAME ESTABLISHED BY THE STATUTE, FROM ALTERING THE CABINET SYSTEM. … Clearly, the Legislature intended to impose restrictions on the state's executive in the formation of a cabinet system.

Beck v. Day

178 Okla. 310 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 6, 1936

So here the fact that defendants had been placed in possession of the certificate was clearly established, and that they had not parted with such possession likewise is clearly established. … That court had the whole picture before it and was better qualified to pass on the question, and having' done so, by denial of the motion for new trial, we accept its decision and judgment.”

Swindall v. State Election Board

168 Okla. 97 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 24, 1934

The party loyalty of those who place party allegiance above all other considerations cannot be questioned and needs no arguments to establish its sincerity. … No further reference need be made to establish the existence of a substantial element in political parties who believe in “splitting the ticket.”

BOOTH v. HOME DEPOT

2022 OK 16 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 15, 2022

¶12 Appellant argues that, because the Acts protect all Oklahomans from criminal actions of fraud by a retailer, public policy is clearly established. Not so. The OCPA and the HRFA are not primarily criminal statutes. … Without a clear mandate from the Legislature, the Acts do not qualify as an established public policy.

South v. Wilkinson

576 P.2d 1173 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 28, 1978

Except for Town of Wellston, supra, each cited case was decided prior to amendment of § 3(4) which qualified status of partners as employees, (Laws, 1959) Ch. la, p. 397, by inclusion of language above quoted. … The statute clearly was not intended to permit such a result.

Shore v. Bd. of Ed., Town of Crescent

97 Okla. 273 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 19, 1924

It clearly appears from the averments of the petition that the suit is one for injunction against the school board of union graded school district No. 1, to enjoin them from issuing bonds in the sum of $45,500, which had … It thus clearly appears that there was a law under which the union graded school district in the instant case could legally be organized, and that in view of the well-established rule applicable to the facts pleaded in the

Byrd v. State Ex Rel. Roff

99 Okla. 165 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 13, 1924

The independent district of the town of Foraker was established about one year later. … As we view it, the agreed statement of facts clearly shows that the plaintiff, appellee herein, is entitled to relief sought.

Oklahoma Public Employees Ass'n v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management

267 P.3d 838 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 2011

The right of access protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a qualified right. … This exception is qualified to the extent that records are kept for the receipt and expenditure of any public funds. See, 51 O.S.2001 § 24A.4.

Smith v. Townsend

1 Okla. 117 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1892

to make such homestead entries, not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to one qualified claimant. … It may not, however, be amiss to state and-keep in view some of the best established and well settled rules on the subject.

State Ex Rel. Wiseman v. Oklahoma Board of Corrections

614 P.2d 551 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 15, 1980

A qualified approval is tantamount to a “pocket veto” and the bill does not become law. … Since the Governor had to affirmatively approve all of the general legislation provisions of HB 1567 for such provisions to become law, and the Governor’s approval was qualified by reason of his vetoing sec. 17, his qualified