Case law

Shore v. Bd. of Ed., Town of Crescent

97 Okla. 273 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 19, 1924

It clearly appears from the averments of the petition that the suit is one for injunction against the school board of union graded school district No. 1, to enjoin them from issuing bonds in the sum of $45,500, which had … It thus clearly appears that there was a law under which the union graded school district in the instant case could legally be organized, and that in view of the well-established rule applicable to the facts pleaded in the

Swindall v. State Election Board

168 Okla. 97 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 24, 1934

The party loyalty of those who place party allegiance above all other considerations cannot be questioned and needs no arguments to establish its sincerity. … No further reference need be made to establish the existence of a substantial element in political parties who believe in “splitting the ticket.”

BOOTH v. HOME DEPOT

2022 OK 16 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 15, 2022

¶12 Appellant argues that, because the Acts protect all Oklahomans from criminal actions of fraud by a retailer, public policy is clearly established. Not so. The OCPA and the HRFA are not primarily criminal statutes. … Without a clear mandate from the Legislature, the Acts do not qualify as an established public policy.

Goff v. SALAZAR ROOFING & CONST., INC.

242 P.3d 604 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 24, 2010

To establish a claim under the ADA, Goff must establish the following: 1) she is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; 2) she is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable … that Goff was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation.

AMS STAFF LEASING INC. v. THOMPSON

344 P.3d 1105 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 2, 2015

The order to commute clearly shortens the duration of benefits. The court therefore finds the last order in this matter (commutation) directly affects the range of monetary benefits. … denying commutation of the original award would also qualify." 2000 OK 86, n.33.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ATKESON

2023 OK CIV APP 46 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 27, 2023

Criswell has no pecuniary interest in the probate of Brennen's estate, does not qualify as a creditor or potential creditor, and does not qualify as a person entitled to disposition of Brennen's remains pursuant to 21 O.S … For purposes of this paragraph, "estranged" means a physical and emotional separation from the decedent at the time of death that clearly demonstrates an absence of due affection, trust and regard for the decedent. 5 Title

State Ex Rel. Wiseman v. Oklahoma Board of Corrections

614 P.2d 551 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 15, 1980

A qualified approval is tantamount to a “pocket veto” and the bill does not become law. … Since the Governor had to affirmatively approve all of the general legislation provisions of HB 1567 for such provisions to become law, and the Governor’s approval was qualified by reason of his vetoing sec. 17, his qualified

Ex Parte Wilson

6 Okla. Crim. 451 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 15, 1911

“Now, can it be contended with any show of reason that the framers of.the Constitution intended to leave the question of the retailing of liquor in a given district to a vote of the majority of the qualified voters in the … How vain it would be, then, for the framers- of the Constitution, to thus take from the Legislature the power to regulate the retailing of -liquor and place that question within the competency of the qualified voters, and

Gypsy Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

6 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 19, 1934

The latter principle of right has been so long and so repeatedly established that it is equivalent in strength to a contract right. … I think the tax here challenged comes clearly within the permissive aet of Congress, and, for that reason, the bill should be dismissed upon the merits.

Hill v. Kemp

645 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 31, 2009

The Court also set a briefing schedule for additional motions to dismiss concerning defendants’ arguments that ORC’s claims were barred by sovereign immunity or that certain defendants were not proper parties. 2 *998 The … It is clearly established that the government may not regulate private speech based on the content of the speech or viewpoint of the speaker. Rosenberger v.

Green v. Hight

194 Okla. 214 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 1944

She does not argue that Elnora Hight was unfit to be appointed, but contends that she is disqualified from acting as such guardian by reason of the fact that she is the duly qualified and acting administratrix of the estate … We are committed tó 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 parent and that the welfare of the child requires it.

Wackerly v. State

71 O.B.A.J. 2132 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 11, 2000

Appellant's argument is misplaced as Oklahoma statutes clearly require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a probability that Appellant would commit criminal acts of violence which would constitute … However he urges this Court to depart from this established precedent for the reasons stated by Judge Chapel in his dissent in Paxton v.

State Ex Rel. Grigsby v. Stokes

142 Okla. 160 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 18, 1930

At least, this is clearly indicated from a statement of the case in the brief of plaintiff herein, which, in so far as a statement of fact goes, is accepted by counsel for defendant. … The above statement of the rule is undoubtedly established law.

Bernardi v. Weinberger

412 F. Supp. 629 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Nov 12, 1975

As Plaintiff’s MW = 84 liters per minute and FEVi = 2.5 liters he clearly failed to qualify under these values. … If a miner qualifies under these values, his ventilatory study would both establish the existence of pneumoconiosis under 20 C.F.R. § 410.414 (b) and its disabling effect. 2 .

Oklahoma Public Employees Ass'n v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management

267 P.3d 838 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 2011

The right of access protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a qualified right. … This exception is qualified to the extent that records are kept for the receipt and expenditure of any public funds. See, 51 O.S.2001 § 24A.4.

Nail Ex Rel. Nail v. Oklahoma Children's Memorial Hospital

710 P.2d 755 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 10, 1985

The demurrer of the defendant University of Oklahoma was sustained on the basis of sovereign immunity, resulting in appeal No. 60,091. … WAS THE DEMURRER OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA PROPERLY SUSTAINED BY REASON OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY?

Scott v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2025

As this claim was not clearly established in 1994, Defendants Meek and Solomon have qualified immunity for the failure to intervene claim. See Bledsoe v. … Carreno, 53 F.4th 589, 617 (10th Cir. 2022) (holding that police officers were entitled to qualified immunity on failure to intervene claim because such a "claim was not clearly established in 1999").

Tucker v. Leonard

76 Okla. 16 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 16, 1919

In the first instance mentioned, the father, under this provision of secton 4, supra, would not be qualified to act as guardian of his own children, notwithstanding he might in all other respects be entirely qualified; anil … The court could clearly gather from this petition that all the ''state of the minor consisted of his allotment, which was sought to lie sold.

Simpson v. Little

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 13, 2020

“A court can consider the two qualified-immunity inquiries—whether the plaintiff has established a statutory or constitutional violation and whether that violation was clearly established—in any order.” … Moreover, as to the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test, “the Supreme Court has ‘repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.’”

McKee v. State

372 P.2d 243 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 31, 1962

Lowbeer was not qualified as a ballistics expert. In support of this contention, the defendant cites Price v. United States, 2 Okl.Cr. 499 , 101 P. 1036 . … in chief, but which is clearly in rebuttal of a material defense, of testimony introduced in defense, does not render the same inadmissible in rebuttal.”