Case law

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 9, 1980

a reasonable procedure for the receipt and disposition of such claims as well as establishing reasonable guidelines for the award thereof. … Statutes providing for the waiver of the sovereign immunity of the State must be strictly construed. As stated in Morris v. State ex rel.

Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma

18 Okla. 395 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 15, 1907

Had another witness been placed upon the stand by the defense, and sworn that he was with the prisoner at Clancy’s and Nennedy’s that night, it would clearly have been competent to ask what the prisoner wore, and whether … the same was induced by fear, under dixress, or through promise of leniency or immunity.

Johnson v. State

10 Okla. Crim. 597 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 7, 1914

The information upon which the conviction is based is as follows: “In the name and by the authority of the state of Oklahoma comes now Sam Hooker, the duly qualified and acting county attorney in and for Oklahoma county, … From this quotation it is clearly to be seen that the California court was not considering, and did not refer to, the question here raised.

Wentz v. Ingenthron

146 Okla. 165 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 25, 1930

of Washington had a very similar proposition under consideration; in that case the county commissioners’ resolution and notice of election being for issuance of $2,500,000 bonds for constructing' new roads and improving established … They are public officials of the state and the law presumes that they will do so, until a contrary intention is clearly made to appear.

Murphy v. Spring

58 F. Supp. 3d 1241 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 4, 2014

or statutory-rights; and (2) the infringed right at issue was clearly established at the time of Ballard’s allegedly unlawful activity, such that a reasonable public official would have known that his challenged conduct … Thus, the analyses are not identical. , Unlike Ballard, Spring and Wheeler did not couch their arguments in terms of qualified immunity. Therefore, the Court did not conduct a qualified immunity analysis. .

Ex Parte Gordon

63 Okla. 305 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 21, 1916

The well-established law of statutory construction lays down the rule that an exception or proviso is exclusive. … Therefore this exemption as provided is exclusive of all other exemptions, and in attempting to provide therefor the board of commissioners have clearly exceeded their authority.”

Warner v. Wickizer

61 Okla. 200 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 31, 1916

He, therefore, was not tbe owner of tbe entire legal estate, as distinguished from the equitable estate, in this land, and therefore cannot claim immunity from champerty under bis first contention. … It is clearly not the intent of the law to prohibit obedience to its own mandates.

Armstrong v. Powell

230 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 10, 2005

Based on natural breaks in the scoring, the applicants are divided into categories of minimally qualified, well qualified, and best qualified. … Clearly, there is, at a minimum, a significant potential for a conflict of interest in this case.

Bruton v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 29, 2019

Finally, “[i]t is well established that arms of the state, or state officials acting in their official capacities, are not ‘persons’ within the meaning of § 1983 and therefore are immune from § 1983 damages suits.” … Additionally, individual defendants are generally entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage—and successively thereafter, each time with a right to an interlocutory appeal

In Re Tefertiller

772 P.2d 396 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 18, 1989

Otherwise, the parties do not dispute that Shawver would qualify as a beneficiary under §§ 152 and 153. … Liberal construction is accorded to the enforcement stage after it is clearly established that the right has attached, but not so in the process of determining the question of whether a lien does exist in contemplation of

In Re State Question No. 137, Etc.

114 Okla. 132 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 9, 1926

And the first objection to the petition urged in the brief of protestante is that it— “Clearly shows that this petition was not only fostered and circulated by the Farmers Union, but was paid for out of the funds of the organization … force and effect, or to be repealed by the enactment of Senate Bill No. 54, and wo conceive it to be our duty to assist the people in expressing such desire at the polls *135 when this can properly be clone in conformity to established

Petuskey v. Cannon

742 P.2d 1117 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 21, 1987

Even though that Court determined the Constitution and statutes make it clear the district court clerk is a judicial officer, subject to the administrative power of the Supreme Court, the Court qualified the power and control … These statutes clearly establish Petitioner’s allegation that Respondent improperly interfered with Petitioner’s collection efforts is unfounded.

Wagers v. State

370 P.2d 567 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 4, 1962

The facts clearly established a case of cold, premeditated murder. The sole questions raised on this appeal are, first, as to the lack of legal qualifications of the jury foreman, Donald A. … Napier, was not qualified as by law provided to serve on the jury.

Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges v. Johnson Controls Inc

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 2, 2024

However, as a matter of first impression, the court held that the burden to establish arm-of-the-state status for   1 The Court commends the parties … Here, however, there is no colorable question as to the Board’s arm-of-the-state status, as it has long been held that the Board—and entities nearly identical to the Board— qualifies as an arm of the state and, therefore

DAVIS v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

370 P.3d 1231 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 14, 2016

A constitutional right to travel is "fundamental,". and one that has been "firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757-58 , 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1178 , 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966). … However, there is a general reference to constitutionally protected liberty interests, and Davis clearly asserted a due process claim in his Response to the Department's motion to dismiss.

Smith v. Munger

532 P.2d 1202 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 6, 1975

The Geesing holding is an extension of case law construing the Oklahoma statutory provisions of immunity of a landlord to a tenant. . The remedies provided by 41 O. … Clearly, the Geesing case has its foundation in these sections of the statute. And it states the rule applicable to its particular facts.

Crow v. Hardridge

73 Okla. 136 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1918

Grayson, the duly appointed. qualified, and acting guardian of said Edmond Hardridge, who was yet a minor. … The rule is so well established as to need no citation of authority that a demurrer to an answer on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense searches the record and will reach back to the

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Mike Osburn, Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 81

2024 OK AG 12 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 21, 2024

A legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and will be upheld "unless it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with fundamental law." Taylor v. State and Educ. Employees Group Ins. … Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 147 (2012) (Series-Qualifier Canon).

State Ex Rel. Strain v. Wells

98 Okla. 169 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 27, 1923

If it is, there can be no question about the immunity of the state, from suits without the state’s consent, and the district court would be without jurisdiction. … The rights, duties, and privileges of the parties being clearly defined and definitely determined, we are confronted with the question: Is this an action against the .slate?

McAlary v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Human Services

233 P.3d 399 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 31, 2009

In view of the "reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence" in the record, this finding is not clearly erroneous. 75 0.8.2001 § 822(1)(e). … Section 1396a(k) was known as the MQT statute because it worked to include Medicaid qualifying trusts (MQTs) into the calculation of available resources. Id.