Case law

MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND v. MACKEY

406 P.3d 564 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2017

96 P.2d 526, 529 ("The general rule of construction appears to be that a proviso which is a limitation of a preceding general provision will be held to affect or limit the immediate clause or general statement, unless it clearly … Id. 569-70. , The majority’s reading results in greater liability because, when the Legislature amended section 402, it did so against the backdrop of a well-established rule that a claimant could only combine (a).the disability

City of Guthrie v. Shaffer

7 Okla. 459 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1898

A qualified juror may be rejected, and still a jury of lawful men, against whom there is no objection, may be obtained. … It is not necessary to cite further authorities, as this point is well established. There is, however, a wide difference in excusing a competent juror and retaining an incompetent one.

State Ex Rel. Strain v. Wells

98 Okla. 169 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 27, 1923

If it is, there can be no question about the immunity of the state, from suits without the state’s consent, and the district court would be without jurisdiction. … The rights, duties, and privileges of the parties being clearly defined and definitely determined, we are confronted with the question: Is this an action against the .slate?

Byford v. City of Duncan

383 P.2d 640 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1963

, definitely and conclusively establish a contract on the part of decedent to adopt plaintiff and said facts and evidence further clearly establish complete performance of said contract on the part of plaintiff and decedent … or divested by the decree and whose statutory rights or immunities will be altered, enlarged or abridged by the decree.

Larman v. Larman

991 P.2d 536 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1999

The husband’s proof falls short of establishing an inter-spousal gift. ¶23 Because there is in this record no proof of value enhancement, if any there was, in the wife’s separate property, produced by the labor or skills … Unless ... the intent to give title be proven clearly the transaction will not be sustained as a gift.

Protest of Great Plains Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

743 P.2d 640 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 6, 1987

However, the question posed here is whether the assets subjected to taxation qualify for an exemption from state tax under either specific statutory or general constitutional principles. … Gamer, 459 U.S. 392, 398 , 103 S.Ct. 692, 696 , 74 L.Ed.2d 562, 568 (1983), in which the United States Supreme Court found that the Tennessee bank tax violated the immunity of obligations of the United States from state and

Finley v. Board of County Commissioners

291 P.2d 333 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 8, 1955

No contention is made that such experts wére not qualified to give an opinion as to the value of the remainder1 of the property after the taking. … unless it clearly appears that this discretion has been abused.

Reaves v. Oliver

3 Okla. 62 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 22, 1895

and that, on the 1st day of August, 1889, the petitioner, Oliver, filed a contest in said land office against the entry of Jones, and applied to enter the land; that he alleged in his contest affidavit that Jones was not qualified … This is the principle enunciated in the Sproat-Durland case and clearly applicable in this case.

Jordan v. Goldman

1 Okla. 406 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 16, 1891

Yet, as that duration depends upon the concurrence of collateral circumstances which qualify and debase the purity of the donation, it is, therefore, a qualified or base fee. … And the provision of this treaty, that the Uhited States, may settle friendly tribes of Indians in any part of the Cherokee Outlet, clearly showing that, at the time the treaty was made, the Cherokee Nation did not claim

Davis v. Thompson

721 P.2d 789 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 3, 1986

By a long established practice of congress, a calendar day is not recognized as limiting a session of any legislative day-’” (Emphasis added). We find White v. … We think it would be improper to frustrate the intent of the constitutional provision so clearly phrased by altering its clear meaning by adding a judicial gloss to the term legislative days.

In Re Assessment of First Nat. Bank of Chickasha

58 Okla. 508 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 10, 1916

The pledged immunity on the part of the state attached in the act, so that at no period of time were the bonds subject to taxation. … The power of the Legislature to exempt the bonds from taxation being, we think, clearly established, was it the purpose and intent so to do? The language of the statute is broad and comprehensive.

Ferrero v. Siel

397 P.2d 501 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 1964

plaintiff contends are controlling and applicable in the instant case, we should be mindful that this is an action of equitable cognizance and this Court will weigh the evidence, and if the judgment of the trial court is not clearly … Although some of plaintiff’s evidence tends to establish facts contrary to-the following statements, there inheres in: the trial court’s judgment a finding supporting the following statements and we have examined the entire

Independent School District No. 89 of Oklahoma County v. Oklahoma City Federation of Teachers, Local 2309

612 P.2d 719 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 10, 1980

This proscription is not qualified in any manner. The Legislature did not provide for an election of a bargaining representative to be held in the event of a strike. … Equity follows the law and where rights of parties are clearly defined and established by law, equity has no power to change those rights.

Dobbs v. Board of County Com'rs of Oklahoma County

208 Okla. 514 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 26, 1953

The county judge shall be a qualified voter and a resident of the county at the time of his election, and a lawyer licensed to practice in any court of record of the State. … Such is clearly the real issue before us. The defendants contend that the opinion in the Nichols v.

Colton v. Huntleigh USA Corp.

76 O.B.A.J. 1403 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 21, 2005

Huntleigh’s “offer” relied upon by Employees states that “Once the funds have been received from the TSA, HUSA will issue the bonus cheeks to all who have qualified.” … Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 , 61 S.Ct. 767 , 85 L.Ed. 1058 (the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued).

Tapley v. Patton

349 P.2d 507 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 1960

It is not disputed that both the plaintiff and the defendant were both qualified real estate brokers under Oklahoma law. … Ray, Okl., 340 P.2d 255 , wherein this well established rule is clearly announced. The plaintiff cannot complain of the instructions to the jury.

Barton v. Harmon

203 Okla. 274 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 11, 1950

Lange was deceased and that the persons named as executors were the duly appointed and qualified executors of his estate. … It is thus clearly evident that the terms, conditions and provisions of said ordinances upon which liability of the executors under the bond is made to depend are not before this court for interpretation and construction

Cook v. Knox

273 P.2d 865 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 8, 1954

Convoy contends that the evidence thus produced establishes as a matter of law that Cook was an independent contractor, thus relieving it from liability. … The instruction is supported by-proof tending to establish that the deceased had a high school education and attended a business college, and was a qualified bookkeeper, capable of earning $200 monthly, and that she had contributed

City of Duncan v. Bingham

394 P.2d 456 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1964

But, respondents’ argument is qualified by the assertion that such construction should apply “at least as to the amount contributed to the pension plan by municipal taxation.” … Such an artificial situation clearly would be violative of Art. V, Sec. 59, Const.

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Apple

130 Okla. 270 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 1, 1928

That this was clearly an inadvertence caused by the condition and the terms of the petition filed herein. … Bridgman was thus duly appointed, acting and qualified administrator of the estate of Martha C.