Case law

In Re Nitey's Estate

175 Okla. 389 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 24, 1935

Smith, field representative of the Secretary of the Interior and the witnesses to the will, clearly established a prima facie case for the proponents. … The testimony of proponents’ witnesses was clearly to the effect that she possessed such capacity. Contestants sought to prove the contrary.

Manley v. Brown

70 O.B.A.J. 2752 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 28, 1999

The issue he allegedly failed to re-press had not been clearly resolved by precedential jurisprudence. … The Malpractice Plaintiffs’ Probative Reliance To Establish Brown’s Substandard Advocacy On Appeal ¶29 The former clients argue that Brown failed, as their counsel on appeal, to raise error , in the trial court’s denial of

Edmonds v. Town of Haskell

121 Okla. 18 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1926

The title of the act clearly disclrses such purpose, and the provisions of sections 1 and 2 thereof show clearly just how such purpose may be carried out, just how such towns may avail themselves of the privilege thus conferred … of lots subject to assessment to pay for the sewer sought to enjoin the work and the assessment on the ground that the engineers were nonresidents and ineligible to he city engineers, that they had not been appointed and qualified

De Hasque v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.

68 Okla. 183 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 21, 1918

inconvenience which may occasionally follow from the temporary delay in the transmission of the mail caused by the arrest of its carriers upon such charges, is far less than that which would arise from extending to them the immunity … But whether legislation of that character be constitutional or not, no intention to extend such exemption should be attributed to Congress, unless clearly manifested by its language.

OLIVER v. HOFMEISTER

2016 OK 15 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 16, 2016

STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶5 Plaintiffs carry a very heavy burden of proof to establish their contention that the Act violates Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. … Supreme Court in Zelman was presented with whether the voucher program violated the Establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Housing Authority of Seminole Nation v. Harjo

790 P.2d 1098 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 17, 1990

The non-deeded tract maintained its restricted status and is clearly under the control of the federal government. … Clearly, the federal government remains involved and concerned in the well-being of the Seminole Indians in this area.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Martin

381 P.2d 877 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 5, 1963

And he said, T have written and found out how they classify these boats’, and he said, T would be qualified to say that it is worth $3500.00.’ He said, ‘You should have $3500.00 worth of insurance on it.’ … The evidence does not establish the money value of their labor, or the amount it enhanced the value of the boat.

McAlester Urban Renewal Authority v. Lorince

519 P.2d 1346 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 1973

No such essential common fact establishing liability is presented in this condemnation cases or any other, for the sole question is, of necessity, the value of the land condemned. … will not ordinarily be disturbed unless it clearly appears that this discretion has been abused.”

Trusty v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety

381 P.3d 726 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 20, 2016

Only qualified persons authorized by the Board may collect breath, -saliva or urine, or’administer tests of breath under the provisions of this title... ’. .. … The right to establish any aspect of general policy by legislation, notwithstanding any delegation of rulemaking authority; 3.

Special Indemnity Fund v. Stockton

653 P.2d 194 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 12, 1982

Prior to the 1977 revision by the legislature, the standard for total permanent disability was established judicially as the statutes provided no definition. … Without such testimony, it is unlikely that the court can make a qualified assessment of the credibility of the claimant’s personal testimony regarding the discomfort or other handicap that make the performance of continuous

City of Stillwater v. Lovell

159 Okla. 214 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 1, 1932

Thompson, is and was at the times hereinafter stated the duly elected, qualified and acting mayor ex-officio police judge of said city; the defendant, O. W. … Sollers, is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting chief of police. “3. That prior to May 11, 1927, the plaintiffs negotiated with one George W.

Humana Hospital Corp. v. Oklahoma Health Planning Commission

705 P.2d 175 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 28, 1985

The rationale for this rule is that courts do not possess the specialized knowledge, training, experience or competency to substitute opinions for the judgment of qualified experts. … In proceedings under the Administrative Procedures Act, the reviewing court is clearly not to engage in substituting its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the agency. 75 O.S.1981 § 322(l)(e). 7 . 626 P

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF GOFORTH

434 P.3d 944 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 23, 2019

We held, she had shown her competence and learning in the law to qualify her for readmission without retaking the bar examination. … We hold the Petitioner has met her burden of proof and established by clear and convincing evidence her eligibility for reinstatement without examination.

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

990 P.2d 835 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 1999

Clayton because she needed it in order to qualify for mission work in her church. She was advised by the Hughes County Court Clerk that no decree granting her a divorce was on file in Hughes County. Mrs. … The answer is, clearly, “None.” ¶ 9 The Trial Panel also concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that Rule 8.4(c) and (d) had been violated. 2 The Trial Panel found that there was no evidence in the record to

Worley v. Muskrat

168 Okla. 302 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 24, 1934

Measured by this rule, testator appears to have come clearly within the requirement. … Her own children had long before married and established homes for themselves and probably had allotments of their own.

Haney v. State

850 P.2d 1087 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 6, 1993

develop and implement a plan, subject to federal approval, for delivery of child support program services in order to qualify for federal funds in providing those services. 10 The Oklahoma Legislature responded by adopting … However, where the meaning of a statute was subject to serious doubt it may be presumed the amendment was meant to more clearly express a legislative intent previously indefinitely expressed. Id.

Johnson v. Hazaleus

338 P.2d 345 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 14, 1959

On the 6th day of November, 1956, probate thereof was denied for the reason it was not dated and could not qualify as a holographic will, in that it does not meet the requirement of 84 O.S.1951 § 54. … Although in conflict in some respects the records clearly indicate and disclose the services rendered to Mr. and Mrs. Sharp by the Hazaleus family. The Haza-leus family was in no way related to the Sharps.

Mayo Hotel Co. v. Danciger

143 Okla. 196 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 1, 1930

To sustain such a contention would certainly establish a new and novel rule in jurisprudence. … It is clearly revealed from this testimony that all plaintiff knew about the alleged incident about Bowles falling into the room was what his wife had told him.

In Re Estate of Hibdon

102 Okla. 145 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 13, 1924

Hibdon, deceased, from a judgment of the district court of Garvin county dismissing his petition for an order of sale of the lands, left by said decedent, for the-payment of debts established against such estate. … That after said Humphrey qualified as such administrator the claims of said creditors hereinbefore named were duly presented to him, allowed and filed with said county court of Garvin county for its approval. “6.

Cumberland Operating Co. v. Ogez

769 P.2d 105 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 1988

The County Commissioners argue that a salt water disposal well is a “water system” expressly excluded by the legislature from qualifying for gross production taxes in Section 1001(h). … It is a well established rule in Oklahoma: [W]hen property is devoted to two uses, one of which, if exclusive, would excuse it from the payment of ad valorem taxes under the gross production tax law, the other of which, if