Case law

Oklahoma Plaza Investors, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (In Re Oklahoma Plaza Investors, Ltd.)

203 B.R. 479 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 18, 1994

Seiden Associates v. ANC Holidays, 959 F.2d 425, 428 (2d Cir.1992) Also, see, generally, Mercury Investment Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 706 P.2d 523, 529 (Okla.1985). … Aetna Casualty v. Pintlar Corp., 948 F.2d 1507 , 1511 (9th Cir.1991). 7 .

American Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union

44 F.R.D. 236 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 2, 1968

Co. v. United States for Use of Pickard, 371 U.S. 57 , 83 S.Ct. 108 , 9 L.Ed.2d 31 (1962). … Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593 , 46 S.Ct. 367 , 70 L.Ed. 750 (1926).

Logan v. Regalado

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 3, 2021

Stat. tit. 57, §§ 47, 52; Estate of Crowell v. Board of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cleveland County, 237 P.3d 134, 142 (Okla. 2010) (“Under Oklahoma law, the sheriff is the final policymaker for a county jail.”). … Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 410, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997).

Briggs v. American Flyers Airline Corporation

262 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 30, 1966

Kelly v. United States Steel Corp., (3rd Cir.—1960) 284 F.2d 850 ; Scot Typewriter Co. v. Underwood Corp., (S.D.N.Y.—1959) 170 F. Supp. 862 . … Herschel v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 216 F.Supp. 347 (S.D.N.Y.1963); Clothier v. United Air Lines, Inc., 196 F.Supp. 435 (E.D.N.Y. 1961); Wood v.

Terwilliger v. Home of Hope, Inc.

21 F. Supp. 2d 1305 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 24, 1998

Magistrate Judge Claire V. … McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133 , 108 S.Ct. 1677 , 100 L.Ed.2d 115 (1988).

Hufft v. Trustee for Child Support Payments for the State of Missouri, The

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 24, 2025

Massengale v. Oklahoma Board of Examiners in Optometry, 30 F.3d 1325, 1330 (10th Cir. 1994); Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co. Inc., 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990). … Nutter, 885 F.Supp. at 1450 (citing Brown v. McCormick, 608 F.2d 410, 413 (10th Cir.1979).

Hogan v. Zletz

43 F.R.D. 308 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1967

II The priority question before the Board! … III The Patent Office Board of Patent Interferences has no procedure for ordering or enforcing the production of documents and the Board has denied the request of Natta et al to extend its testimony period.

Warden v. City of Grove

44 F. Supp. 3d 1098 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 26, 2014

Grove has provided for the appointment of a board of adjustment. Id. § 12-201. … Worrell v.

Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Carselowey

40 F.2d 540 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 1930

In re Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., 43 Okl. 307 , 142 P. 997 ; Walker et al. v. Hays, 127 Okl. 127 , 260 P. 15 ; Kenoyer v. Board of Equalization of Ottowa County, 130 Okl. 3 , 264 P. 891 . … Freeman v. State, 115 Ala. 208 , 22 So. 560 ; People v. Barker, 153 N. Y. 98 , 47 N. E. 46 ; East Tennessee, etc,, R. Co. v. Morristown (Tenn. Ch. [App.]) 35 S.

Scholl v. Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 28, 2025

Brown & Root, Inc., 896 F.2d 474, 477-78 (10th Cir.1990) (recog- nizing that a trial court must “ ‘ascertain and apply the state law where ... it controls [the] decision’” (quoting Huddleston v. … See Young v.

Turner v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 3, 2022

United States v. Brown, 553 F.3d 768, 792 (5th Cir. 2008). … See United States v.

Lawyer v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 28, 2025

Brown’s evaluation at all, the Court simply cannot follow her reasoning regarding how it factored into the RFC. Cf. Keyes-Zachary v. … Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004); see also Haga v.

Kerns v. Independent School District No. 31

984 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 31, 2013

Ruiz v. … Oklahoma City Public Schools Board of Education, 147 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir.1998), local school board members are always the final policymakers for an Oklahoma school district, regardless of the type of decision in question.

Rose v. Tulsa County District Attorneys

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 21, 2020

Bryson v. … See Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1172 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting the difference between substantive and procedural due process).

Alford v. McConnell

27 F. Supp. 176 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 13, 1939

Lowe v. City of Guthrie, 4 Okl. 287 , 44 P. 198 ; McCrory v. Board of Commissioners, 48 Okl. 684 , 150 P. 683 ; Hughes v. Board of Commissioners, 50 Okl. 410 , 150 P. 1029 ; Board of Commissioners v. … In Hodgson v.

Gellner v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 7, 2021

Bank & Trust Co. of Sapulpa, v. … Hart v. Bayer Corp., 199 F.3d 239, 246 (Sth Cir. 2000) (quoting B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1981)).

United States v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

435 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 5, 1977

As a result of this Board meeting, the policy adopted by the Board of Phillips, in the words of Mr. … In United States v.

Terwilliger v. Home of Hope, Inc.

21 F. Supp. 2d 1305 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 24, 1998

Magistrate Judge Claire V. … Gilligan v. City of Emporia, Kan., 986 F.2d 410, 413 (10th Cir.1993). 10.

Hunt v. Democratic Party of Oklahoma

439 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 6, 1977

If the nominee was a candidate who filed his Declaration of Candidacy with the State Election Board, the political party’s state central committee shall notify, in writing, the Secretary of the State Election Board of said … The Todd v.

Wittenberg v. Oklahoma Health Care Authority

781 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 16, 2011

The state statutory scheme did not provide for oversight of the review committee by the state board, and the review committee could not be considered an extension of the state board for immunity purposes. Id. at 1320. … This functional independence is distinct from Cleavinger , where the Supreme Court decided that a prison disciplinary board was entitled only to qualified immunity based in part on the fact that members of the board were