Case law

Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oliphant

172 Okla. 635 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 26, 1935

the facts should be clearly proved.” … Assignments of error 1 and 2 are her© presented, and are stated sufficiently clearly in the language above. Under section 398, O.

Sullivan v. Buckhorn Ranch Partnership

76 O.B.A.J. 1387 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 2005

The facts, taken together, clearly raise issues of material fact regarding whether Sullivan received the benefits of the transaction or even made the conveyance with full knowledge of the purpose and source of the benefits … We determine that because the evidentiary materials are clearly not dispositive of the material questions of fact regarding the application of 16 0.8.2001 § 11, 29 the trial court entered summary judgment prematurely. b.

Cartwright v. Holcomb

21 Okla. 548 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 24, 1908

This is clearly wrong, and is contrary to the statutes of Oklahoma.” On the first proposition counsel for plaintiff in error contends that, notwithstanding section 1807, Wilson’s Rev. & Ann. … But this rule is qualified by another, which requires only a prima facie showing of the validity of the will and its due execution to entitle it to probate.” From another case cited by plaintiff in error (Craig v.

Hutchings v. Winsor

92 Okla. 37 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 24, 1923

Winsor died, and the plaintiff, his wife, had been duly appointed and qualified as executrix of his estate; that due demand had been made upon the defendant for the payment of said indebtedness and payment refused by the … That this is true is conclusively established, not only by the answer of defendant in which he entered a general denial that ho had ever borrowed any sum from the plaintiff’s testator, but by his answer to the interrogatory

First National Bank of El Reno v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

185 Okla. 98 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 1939

As grounds for establishing the invalidity of the state act, it is urged that the same constitutes an attempt to impose a tax upon income derived from securities and instru-mentalities of the United States, which income is … The state act and the permissive federal act involved herein clearly indicate that such a tax was contemplated and levied; therefore, under the authorities, no state or federal constitutional provision has been contravened

DOE v. THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. OF TULSA

2017 OK 106 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 2017

We went further: "The First Amendment clearly safeguards the freedom to worship as well as the freedom not to worship ." Id. … I, qualifies under "unless otherwise provided by law." See Reeds , 2006 OK 43 at ¶11; U.S. Const. art.

Oec v. Og&e

982 P.2d 512 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 5, 1999

The exact line of demarcation between franchises and licenses may not be clearly drawn, but their general characters and limits are so well known and so clearly established that it is not difficult to assign many rights granted … A process should be established whereby all retail consumers are permitted to choose their retail electric energy suppliers by July 1, 2002.

Hubbard v. Hubbard

603 P.2d 747 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 13, 1979

In an attempt to establish the future income of Dr. Hubbard, the testimony of Dr. Turner Bynum was offered. Dr. Bynum is an Oklahoma City medical doctor who specializes as an internist. … He was also qualified to state his knowledge of what incomq could be expected from emergency room duty. The trial court did not err in admitting his testimony. III.

HOBSON v. CIMAREX ENERGY CO.

453 P.3d 482 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 17, 2019

Cimarex responded that a future interest owner does not qualify as a surface owner under the SDA. … Likewise, Black's explains that [o]wnership of property is either absolute or qualified.

Kline v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Water Resources Board

759 P.2d 210 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 23, 1988

The Board’s order established the maximum annual yield of fresh ground water from the alluvium and terrace deposits of the Beaver-North Canadian River in five counties in northwestern Oklahoma. … The Board clearly met its burden of proof by substantial evidence.

City Nat. Bank of Fort Smith v. Incorporated Town of Kiowa

104 Okla. 161 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 14, 1924

The correctness of the first statement does not include or establish the correctness of the second statement" as a necessary corollary, but the correctness of the second statement may include the correctness of the first … a grant of power to municipalities in furtherance of public policy, and since the impairment or destruction of public service, or the diversion of public funds to purposes other than those for which they are voted, are clearly

Johnson v. State

186 Okla. 80 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 3, 1939

We therein applied the rule that when a petition or complaint “shows clearly upon its face that more than the statutory period of limitations has elapsed, and there is no allegation in the petition which takes the cause out … Meisinger and the defendant was established by her testimony and admitted by the defendant. According to Mrs.

State Ex Rel. Cartwright v. Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority

613 P.2d 476 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 17, 1980

Both are clearly distinguishable. The case of Application of Board of Regents, 595 P.2d 785 (Okl.1979) was decided primarily on 70 O.S. Supp.1973 § 4001, not 17 O.S.Supp.1975 § 160.1. … There is no evidence or any reasonable inference to infer the 00WA qualifies for an exemption. REVERSED AND REMANDED. WILLIAMS, BARNES, SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., concur. LAVENDER, C. J., IRWIN, V. C.

Armstrong v. Phillips

76 Okla. 192 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 3, 1918

As there can be no question that the evidence introduced by the plaintiff clearly tends to establish her contention that the deed made by her to her grandfather was intended as security for the payment of a loan of money, … L. 1910, which provides: “Every instrument purporting to be an absolute or qualified conveyance of real estate or any interest therein, but intended to be de-feasible or as security for the payment of money, shall be deemed

Tate v. Murphy

202 Okla. 671 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 18, 1949

He is the only witness for the plaintiff who could qualify as an expert. … Everhart, but such was not established.

Marshall v. Homier

13 Okla. 264 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 10, 1903

can be fully compensated in damages, the order of the judge dissolving the temporary injunction was clearly right. … Section 10, session laws' of 1897, page 94, provides: “ ‘Appurtenances/ unless otherwise qualified, shall mean all improvements and every right of whatever character pertaining to the premises described.”

Otjen v. Kerr

191 Okla. 628 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 1942

we have nothing but conclusions without the statement of any facts to be established at the hearing by contestant or to be controverted by his adversary. … governing certainty, definiteness, and particularity in pleading have frequently been applied to pleadings in which fraud is a basis for affirmative relief; in such cases the facts constituting the claimed fraud must be clearly

Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Kendall

96 Okla. 194 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 20, 1923

If untrue, they may come within the qualified privilege. The above questions are not involved in this case. … Y.) 149, it is said: “The rale is stated in the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure tvol. 25, p. 401) as follows : ‘The interests of society require that immunity should be granted to the discussion of public affairs and that

St. Louis, I. M. S. Ry. Co. v. Weldon Et Ux.

39 Okla. 369 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 6, 1913

“Where it clearly appears that a fire was started on the right of way of a railroad by a passing locomotive, which extended to and destroyed adjoining property, and the company, on the trial of an action against it, produces … Such evidence is not competent, unless on a subject calling for opinion evidence, and then the witness must qualify himself before he will be allowed to testify.

Gilmore v. Enogex, Inc.

878 P.2d 360 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 29, 1994

Enogex alone established and implemented the drug-testing program. … The at-will immunity is now modified only to the extent that protection is afforded by the breach-of-public-policy doctrine.