Case law

State ex rel. Williamson v. Commissioners of Land Office of the State

301 P.2d 655 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 18, 1956

In reference to the foregoing provisions of the Enabling Act and in particular notice of the second paragraph of Section 8, above quoted, we have heretofore expressed the view and held that the Congress clearly expressed … Congress to prescribe any such conditions operating to limit in the future the legislative powers of a new state over matters in their nature confined exclusively to the states as a part of their sovereign powers; that the establishment

English v. Rainwater

403 P.2d 449 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 16, 1965

Plaintiffs’ evidence established they were heirs named in the will mentioned, and they relied upon the final decree of the probate court to establish their right to distribution of the estate according to terms of the will … The undisputed testimony clearly established an agreement that the grantees named in the deed were to provide care and support for the grantor.

REVOLUTION RESOURCES v. ANNECY

477 P.3d 1133 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 2020

There was a rational basis in the evidence for the district court's order denying the temporary injunction and it clearly was not an abuse of discretion. … place of residence with some family member over fifteen (15) years of age, or, in the case of nonresidents, unknown heirs or other persons whose whereabouts cannot be ascertained, by publication in one issue of a newspaper qualified

OKLAHOMA CALL FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE v. DRUMMOND

2023 OK 24 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 2023

Bozman , 376 Md. 461, 469-70 , 830 A.2d 450, 455 (2003) for a discussion of the common law doctrine of interspousal immunity. Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband's Stick , Jo. … Waties Waring who presided over the case of Isaac Woodward Jr., and who later became a civil rights icon, asked his wife of thirty years to move to Florida, establish residency, and file for divorce.

Love v. Boyle

72 Okla. 300 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 18, 1919

this action, alleging that the plaintiffs in error, defendants below, who were respectively the duly elected, qualified, and acting Corporation Commissioners, and the duly appointed, acting, and qualified chief oil and gas … rule that legislative enactments must be upheld and followed by the courts unless they are clearly violative of some provision, either expressed or necessarily implied, of the organic law.

Smith v. Baker

5 Okla. 326 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1897

This provision simply codifies the common law, and unless qualified by other statutory provisions, the right of the debtor to select and prefer one creditor to another, and to transfer his prop, erty in payment, or to convey … Jenks, applicable to the facts therein stated, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In this case, there is no element of trust. In Straw v.

Midland Valley Railroad v. Barnes

162 Okla. 44 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 24, 1933

Further than that, “establish to your satisfaction” seems clearly much stronger than “find” or “believe” immediately followed by the words “from a preponderance of the evidence.” … Proof to a demonstration is not required, and it is usually unfortunate to employ qualifying words when defining the necessity for a preponderance of the evidence. Hoffman v. Loud, 69 N. W. 231, 232 , 111 Mich. 158 .”

Schmitt v. Hunt

359 P.2d 198 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 1960

That case is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. … Section 813 under such construction and operation is clearly valid. We call attention to Campbell v.

State ex rel. Department of Institutions, Social & Rehabilitative Services v. Griffis

545 P.2d 763 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 9, 1975

(e) That it is the desire of the petitioners that the relationship of parent and child be established between them and the child. … The adoption statutes clearly do not permit any interpretation which would derogate the constitutionally vested jurisdiction of the trial judge and allow a delegation of this decision making power to the Department or to

Aldridge v. Burchfiel

421 P.2d 655 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 11, 1966

The trial proceedings clearly established that the defendant was not misled to his prejudice by the failure of plaintiff to allege that the oral agreement whereby defendant became obligated to pay for the extra work was the … A qualified witness for the plaintiff testified positively that the amount due the plaintiff after proper deductions was $9,611.68.

Way v. Grand Lake Ass'n, Inc.

635 P.2d 1010 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 9, 1981

parties 11 by holding where a person or entity enters into a valid contract with the proper state officials and a valid appropriation has been made therefor, the state has consented to be sued and has waived its governmental immunity … Both Veterans and Vette are clearly factually distinguishable from the case at bar.

The Institute For Responsible Alcohol Policy v. State ex rel. Alcohol Beverage Laws Enforcement Comm.

2020 OK 5 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 22, 2020

"In assessing the conformity of a challenged state statute to our fundamental law, we are guided by well-established principles. The Constitution is the bulwark to which all statutes must yield." Liddell v. … Const. art 5 §51 provides: The Legislature shall pass no law granting to any association, corporation, or individual any exclusive rights, privileges, or immunities within this State. 18 The Okla.

Unit Petroleum Co. v. Nuex Corp.

807 P.2d 251 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 20, 1991

The rule then goes on to establish that the signing is a certification that the attorney has read the document and that the document is well grounded in fact and in law and is not interposed for an improper purpose. … It provides that "the Legislature shall pass no law granting to any association, corporation, or individual any exclusive rights, privileges, or immunities within this State."

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Groves

20 Okla. 101 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 21, 1908

“Where the evidence on the trial establishes the fact so clearly .and indisputably that the court may instruct the jury to bring in a particular verdict, but neglects to do so, and is not requested so to do, and the jury … However, in England and in many of the states, though the cases are often difficult to reconcile, the right under the common-law doctrine has been qualified. Nininger v. Norwood, 72 Ala. 281 , 47 Am.

Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Overmyre

58 Okla. 723 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 25, 1916

Immunity on account of negligence in the location of railway tracks is denied in other jurisdictions. In Gordon v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 129 Iowa, 747 , 106 N. … In the opinion it was held that the evidence before the jury clearly tended to prove the faulty construction of the Porter siding; reference to it being made as the- “dangerous man trap that was thereby set for brakemen and

Choctaw County v. Bateman

208 Okla. 16 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 5, 1952

It is not a technical legal term with a clearly defined meaning and is used in more senses than one. … Therein the court stated: “It is our view that the testimony of the injured workman sufficiently established the cause of the hernia.” See, also, in this connection, Nu-Way Laundry & Cleaners v.

Warren v. Century Bankcorporation, Inc.

741 P.2d 846 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 4, 1987

Its finding is not clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence in the record. … El Paso Natural Gas Company, 246 A.2d 789 [Del.Ch.1967], which involved the filing of consolidated tax returns by a parent and a controlled subsidiary qualified so to do under the Internal Revenue Code.

City of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

789 P.2d 1287 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 1, 1990

The very statute that authorized cities to levy sales tax also established the timetable for State remittance of City revenue. … The state may no longer be regarded as absolutely protected by sovereign immunity from counsel-fee liability for vexatious or bad-faith litigation conduct of its lawyers or functionaries. See State ex rel. Poulos v.

Clark v. Duncanson

79 Okla. 180 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 7, 1920

that the cross-petition is, in effect, the commencement of a new suit, and not having been commenced within one year from the registration of the tax deed, it is barred although set up as a defense to plaintiff’s action to establish … survived, the equitable defenses thereto also survived, and that although the defendant’s cause of action on account of fraud was barred by the statute of limitations, the relator’s judgment did not become by age alone immune

Schmidt v. United States

912 P.2d 871 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 27, 1996

We answer the second with a qualifying affirmative by noting that it applies if the certifying court finds that three preconditions to the clause’s enforcement are met: (1) the exculpatory clause’s language clearly, definitely … Express consent, which might also be called “waiver” or "release”, will usually bar recovery by the plaintiff unless there is a statute or established public policy against it. Murray, supra at 1129 .