Case law

Fitzgerald v. State

75 Okla. Crim. 192 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 30, 1942

Counsel for defendant: Not the proper way to establish/ the general reputation. By the Court: I think that would be the best way to> establish a reputation. Overruled. Exception. A. Yes. Q. A number of times? … It follows that the witnesses for the state did not properly qualify as knowing the general reputation of defendant’s place of residence. In the case of Williams v. State, 25 Okla.

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

562 P.2d 511 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 1977

We note the Code in DR 2-106(A) provides: “A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.” … However, it is our further order that Respondent be suspended thereafter until he shall affirmatively show that he is in all respects again able and qualified to resume his position as a member of the Bar of this State and

Byers v. Byers

618 P.2d 930 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1980

The doctrine of equitable adoption is clearly inapposite. … It requires evidence of a binding contract for adoption whose existence must be established by clear and convincing proof. 7 No offer was made to show facts tending to establish a contract amounting to an equitable adoption

Opinion No. 80-169 (1980) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 1980

purpose of this statute is: "(a) To provide uniformity in Accident and Health Insurance and/or Benefits Coverage and Life Insurance on all employees of the State of Oklahoma; "(b) To enable the state to attract and retain qualified … As the purchase of liability insurance has been held to be a waiver of sovereign immunity, the decision to purchase liability insurance necessarily impacted upon broader public policy concerns and simply the "internal management

Ex Parte Washington

92 Okla. Crim. 337 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 18, 1950

presented whether, when the prosecution has established the commission of the offense by the accused, it was also its duty to establish by evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, its right to have the accused punished for such … Cr. 193 , 11 P. 2d 205 , it is stated: “The constitutional immunity against twice being put in jeopardy for the same offense may be waived by an accused.

Kimbrough

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 20, 2026

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 9 Defendants also contend they are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity. … STAT. tit. 22, § 1373.6(A)). 12 Drummond also contends he is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity. Dkt. # 40, at 7-8, 13-15.

State v. Humphrey

620 P.2d 408 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 23, 1980

But Bowen is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In that case the defendant was asked by a police officer to accompany him outside a convenience store. … This argument is untenable in the context of 21 O.S.1971, § 1283, which qualifies and limits the scope of the term “carry” with the phrases “on his person” and “in any vehicle.”

Coker v. Brown

206 Okla. 88 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 26, 1952

Looney’s testimony on' this ground or in fact on • any other ground, except that he had not known' the testatrix for.a. sufficient length-'of time -to qualify .him to testify ■■ as - to, her mental competency, and a'further … court was not clearly against the weight of the evidence, but is amply supported thereby.

McInturff v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Transmission Co.

475 P.2d 160 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 23, 1970

Clearly, it meets the same rule as stated in a slightly different way in Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company v. Kelly et al. (1936), 177 Okl. 206 , 58 P.2d 328 ; Grand River Dam Authority v. … Her evidence does not even establish the minimum amount of damages for which she would, as a matter of law, be entitled to judgment.

Dade v. State

188 Okla. 677 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 29, 1941

establish that the defendant not merely acquiesced in the search but that he specifically, unequivocally, and actively consented to it. … The trier of facts should be slow in finding intentional and voluntary relinquishment of immunity from search without a warrant when from the evidence the matter is somewhat in doubt. United States v.

Pardee v. Personal Representative for the Estate of Pardee

76 O.B.A.J. 1248 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 31, 2004

The ex-wife asked the court to establish a constructive trust in the funds. … Other statutory schemes, including the Social Security Act, clearly protect benefits after their receipt. .Congress did not include such expansive language in ERISA.

Williams v. Continental Const. Corp.

168 Okla. 510 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 26, 1934

foreign corporations to do business within the state, and with the duty of the supervision in many respects of all corporations, both domestic and foreign, doing business within the state, was likely influenced by what clearly … Inasmuch as section 31, article 9, of the Constitution clearly contemplates that such foreign corporations may, by compliance with the laws of the state, acquire the right of *513 eminent domain, and inasmuch as the corporation

Ingram v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

888 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 18, 2012

It’s also a disease that impairs the immune system and causes people to have infections. It makes them susceptible to infections. … This is clearly a case where the causes of Mr. Ingram’s medical conditions and death cannot be determined absent expert testimony. See Christian v.

Radford v. Gary

145 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 2, 1956

Significantly, the court therein recognized that if the case had not been premature, a novel, and not yet decided question of law as to the Fourteenth Amendment existed. [10] Clearly, this court does not have the right to … If the plaintiff can establish at the trial upon the merits the unconstitutionality of the presently effective apportionment provisions, *547 such apportionment provisions should be struck down.

Alexander v. Smith & Nephew, P.L.C.

98 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 4, 2000

McKenzie does not qualify as an expert to testify as to the causation of Plaintiffs ailments. Dr. … There are two exceptions to the learned intermediary doctrine in Oklahoma — mass immunizations and situations where the FDA has mandated that warning be given directly to the consumer — neither of which is applicable here

Riles v. Oklahoma Attorney General's Office

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 20, 2024

The Tenth Circuit has not addressed whether the board qualifies as an arm of the State of Oklahoma, and no “judicially noticeable evidence clearly resolves [the] entity’s arm-of-state status and entitlement to sovereign … immunity.”

Wheat v. State Ex Rel. Tulsa County District Attorney

241 P.3d 1150 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2010

. ¶3 Wheat asserted she had been replaced "by a less qualified younger male," and attempted to pursue a tort claim for age discrimination under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA). … Wheat's employment status is clearly different than that of the plaintiff in Dixon, who was hired one semester at a time, and, thus, was not an at-will employee. 6 Wheat was clearly hired for an indefinite period, and was

Grose v. Romero

200 Okla. 330 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 18, 1948

In Re Guardianship of Hight, 194 Okla. 214 , 148 P. 2d 475 , we said: “We are committed to the rule that in order to deprive a parent of the custody of a minor child, the evidence must clearly establish the unfitness of the … established that she was unfit, or that the change of custody was inimical to the welfare of the minors.

Opinion No. 71-125 (1971) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 12, 1971

In Williamson, the Court defined "optician" as "an artisan qualified to grind lenses, fill prescriptions, and fit frames," Williamson, supra, at Page 486. … The Court, at Page 490, established the optician's circumstance by saying: "An eyeglass frame, considered an isolation, is only a piece of merchandise.

Empire Refining Co. v. Davis

6 F.2d 305 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 25, 1925

The argument and authorities of plaintiff on this point in his brief are clearly sufficient to refute this contention of the defendant. … Ed. 1087 , holding that, by the provisions of the Federal Control Act, the government was to operate the carriers, but the usual immunity of the sovereign from legal liability was not to prevent the.enforcement of liabilities