Case law

Pray v. Kidd Williams Drilling Corporation

352 P.2d 380 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 1960

The evidence relied on by defendant to establish a condition precedent clearly contradicts the terms of the written contract, inasmuch as it attempts to relieve defendant of the liability imposed by the contract as to ^ths … Was defendant’s letter of March 19th, a qualified acceptance of the written contract, or a new proposal?

SHAWAREB v. SSM HEALTH CARE OF OKLAHOMA

480 P.3d 894 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 2020

They argued plaintiffs' expert, a "certified nurse assistant" did not possess authority to prescribe or administer narcotics and was "clearly not qualified to render the neurologic and narcotics-related opinions relied upon … Defendants asserted plaintiffs did not produce any qualified expert testimony to support their claims.

Craig v. Wright

182 Okla. 68 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 8, 1938

Thus we will not discuss privilege, either absolute or qualified. As to the question of truth, the trial court submitted it to the jury, and they found from sufficient evidence that the publication; was true. … These motives for making the publication are clearly shown by the evidence.

BOATMAN v. BOATMAN

404 P.3d 822 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 4, 2017

A balancing of the equities considering the means of each party does not qualify Mother for attorney fees because a disparity in the respective incomes of the parties is a factor that may be taken into account, 26 The" trial … court’s order that each party pay their own fees was not a clearly erroneous conclusion against reason and evidence.

Rogers v. Meiser

74 O.B.A.J. 967 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 4, 2003

It is not clear, however, that the immunity granted and the concomitant limit of remedy has as its intent so broad a sweep as to engulf all previously existing common law claims. … A written property condition disclosure statement on a form established by rule by the Oklahoma Real Estate Commission which shall include the information set forth in subsection B of this section. B. 1.

City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Board

133 P.3d 281 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 14, 2006

They create preference and establish inequality. … An injunction will be affirmed on appeal unless it is clearly against the weight of evidence, contrary to law or established principles of equity. Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 925 P.2d at 549 .

Agee v. Gant

412 P.2d 155 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 15, 1966

The trial court believed the jury panel to be competent and qualified. In Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. … stated: “A large discretion is vested in the trial court in determining the competency and qualifications of jurors, and its action should never be disturbed by an appellate court, unless an abuse of such discretion is clearly

McAlister v. State Ex Rel. Walton

96 Okla. 143 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 1923

It is therefore necessary to the decision that there be clearly ascertained, determined, and respected that boundary line that separates political power and judicial authority and defines their respective limits. … At all events, it is not a binding enactment until its enactment is completed, and, until it is a binding enactment, it retains its relationship to the political power, and is immune from the process of judicial authority

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FORESEE

2020 OK 88 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 13, 2020

This section establishes a priority list of individuals for purposes of conferring control over a deceased person's remains. … An instrument expressly assigning the right to dispose of one's body most clearly carries out a decedent's intent.

M.B. v. T.R.

264 P.3d 1258 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 1, 2011

At the conclusion of those proceedings the judge held that T.R. clearly exercised his paternal rights and that he made monetary contributions to the natural mother during her pregnancy. … STANDARD OF REVIEW T7 "An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court exercises its discretion 'to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.

McCuiston v. Christian

197 Okla. 441 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 17, 1946

The juror was not qualified in the case at bar. 12 O.S. 1941 , §572. … established in respect to some pure, simple, and unmixed question of law, or that the trial court acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

American Insurance Ass'n v. State Industrial Commission

745 P.2d 737 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 3, 1987

The initial question we must determine is whether the controversy sought to be presented has been rendered moot, in whole or in part, by the passage of after-enacted legislation. 7 It is a long-established rule that this … law between nisi prius and appellate decisions compels the appellate court to apply the latest version of the pertinent law. 14 It is quite apparent that all the post-§ 149.1 enactments on the subject here in contest were clearly

Consolidated Flour Mills Co. v. Muegge

127 Okla. 295 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 13, 1927

“The fact that the business carried on by a corporation is entirely interstate in its character does not render the corporation immune from the ordinary process of the courts of the state.’’ In the St. … The rule directly applicable to this case is clearly stated by tbe Supreme Court of Georgia in the case of Pickens Co. v. Thomas, 152 Ga. 648 , 111 S. E. 27 , 21 A. L.

St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Routh

133 Okla. 168 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 10, 1928

This contention is clearly without merit, and no authority is cited in support thereof. … We think the instruction in this case in this regard came clearly within the well-established rule that, where an instruction is inaccurate or incomplete and the inaccuracy or incompleteness is cured by othér instructions

Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc.

302 P.3d 789 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 4, 2013

Article 5, § 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: "Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title...." Okla. Const. art. 5, § 57. … The Act creates immunity from suit only for entities defined under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and by its terms eliminates remedies for certain injured consumers.

Presley v. Board of County Commissioners

70 O.B.A.J. 1669 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 18, 1999

A statute will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with fundamental law. 18 In testing the validity of a state statute which differentiates in treatment of one class paralleled with its treatment … the power to make gratuitous compensation to officers in addition to that established by law; 3) to establish the complete independence of the three branches of government; 4) to prevent office holders from using influence

Burnett v. Davis

27 Okla. 124 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 13, 1910

Some of the grounds are not supported by the record and are so clearly without merit as not to require discussion here, but other grounds assigned are based upon facts disclosed by the record and require consideration. … In the Boser case, as in the case at bar, the record was silent as to notice of the time of settling the case, and the court permitted proof outside of the record to establish that such notice was given. *126 Dismissal is

Price v. State ex rel. State Employees Group Health, Dental & Life Insurance Board

757 P.2d 839 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 5, 1988

The Board shall have the right to require proof of such total disability to qualify for the above described extended benefits. … Appellee would clearly be entitled to receive benefits *844 if she had elected to keep her son home from school. The State Board's Order was clearly erroneous and in error of law. See 75 O.S.1981, § 322(l)(d) & (e).

NONDOC MEDIA and WILLIAM W. SAVAGE III v. STATE Ex Rel. BOARD OF REGENTS of the UNIV. of OKLAHOMA

2026 OK 2 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 13, 2026

But the Majority fails to recognize that courts "construe the [ORA's] provisions to allow access unless an exception clearly applies." Id. The record before us does not demonstrate an exception clearly applies. … As such, the existence and scope of any joint-interest agreement and the nature of the subpoena cannot be presumed and must be established through competent evidence on remand ¶37 A ruling upon a motion for summary judgment

Cain v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad Company

293 P.2d 355 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 1, 1955

In the Templar case, supra, the motorist’s lack of knowledge of existence of the railroad crossing was held not to qualify the rule. … The failure of such evidence to establish the issue sought to be injected into the case is apparent.