Case law

Cutler v. Territory of Oklahoma

8 Okla. 101 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 11, 1899

This statute evidently establishes a rule in civil cases, and in some instances, probably, in the trial of criminal causes. … In our judgment, this statute does not establish *110 any new rule, but only announces an established rule. A district court consists of a judge, clerk, and other officers.

Marcum v. Marcum

265 P.2d 723 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 12, 1954

The court will not deprive a mother of the custody of her children where the record clearly shows that she is a fit person to have the custody and care of them, and award custody to the grandparents. … Ford, 206 Okl. 561 , 245 P.2d 75 , announced that the rule is qualified to the extent that where a change is made from the order previously made, there must be shown a change in the condition of the parties to justify such

Opinion No. (1998)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 17, 1998

ANALYSIS ¶ 14 As noted at the outset of this Opinion, statutory provisions are presumed to be constitutional and are upheld unless they are "clearly unconstitutional". … By its own terms therefore, the statutory provision does not apply to an establishment that is not licensed by ABLE.

Holmes v. Nightingale

158 P.3d 1039 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 20, 2007

Appellate courts' norm-making will concern itself primarily with conformity of ground rules to be established to the requirements of due process that must assure the adversary parties as well as the health-care providers … Provost, 359 F.Supp.2d 234 (N.D.N.Y.2005)(qualified protective order entered to make request for ex parte communication comply with HIPAA); Smith v. Am. Home Prods.

Hollis v. STATE EX REL. DPS

131 P.3d 145 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 14, 2005

The burden of proving incapacity to refuse to submit to the test rests with the licensee if, and after, DPS has established its prima facie case. … If this were a criminal proceeding, Oklahoma law clearly provides the defendant would have the burden of proving incapacity to refuse to submit to the breath or blood tests under the same statute, 47 O.S.

Herndon v. Excise Board of Garfield County

147 Okla. 126 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 20, 1931

Herndon maintained tbat be was tbe duly appointed and qualified judge of said court and under authority of Board of Ed. of Oity of Guthrie v. … It is not necessary that we adjudicate a repeal of the city court act in this action, and we decline to do so, for the reason that it is unnecessary for our conclusion, as more clearly appears. in the following established

Opinion No. 76-314 (1976) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 6, 1976

(2) If the subject vehicle has been used as a demonstrator and the individual purchaser is required to pay the excise tax, does the vehicle qualify for "used car" excise tax rates as opposed to "new car" excise tax rates … Section 2104 establishes the referred to value of vehicles. 68 O.S. 2104 [ 68-2104 ] provides in pertinent part: "On and after October 1, 1961, the value of any new motor vehicle, except house trailers, for the purposes of

Render v. Lillard

61 Okla. 206 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 25, 1916

Although our statute renders such contracts invalid only in the qualified sense stated in Schechinger v. Gault et al., 35 Okla. 416 , 130 Pac. 305 (Ann. … Instruction No. 1 has no number or other notation at the top, and was clearly prepared and given strictly by the court.

Cohenour v. Smart

205 Okla. 668 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 1951

Holden & Martin Lumber Co., 112 Vt. 17 , 20 A. 2d 99 , 135 A.L.R. 512 , where may be found most of the cases in the United States up to that time on the question; and the authorities clearly hold that medical testimony as … But where such evidence is not corroborated or supplemented by other evidence, and where the facts necessary to be established must be proved by testimony of a qualified expert, such evidence, standing alone, is generally

Teuscher v. Gragg

136 Okla. 129 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 23, 1929

The ground' of equitable relief and immunity from the statute is the fraud perpetrated, not the agreement to hold in trust. … The above undisputed and unimpeached testimony clearly establishes that counsel for defendant inaptly sought to apply the equitable maxim that: “He who s’eeks equity must come with clean hands.”

Hartel

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 24, 2026

It is also undisputed that Plaintiff applied for a position for which he was qualified. … “Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” and the State of Oklahoma has not generally waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Littlejohn v.

Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Lamb & Tyner

28 Okla. 275 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 7, 1911

to serve from the second Monday of the following January until the second Monday of January four rears thereafter and until his successor shall be elected and qualified. … Walker, 25 Okla. 353 , 109 Pac. 544 , wherein it was said by the court: “That portion of the section reading, ‘and such other courts, commissions or boards, inferior to the Supreme Court, .as may be established by law/ clearly

Opinion No. 79-319 (1980) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 10, 1980

The Oklahoma Constitution, Article XVIII , Section 5(a) and Article XVIII, Section 5(b) limited the powers of municipalities to grant franchises by expressly requiring approval of a majority of qualified electors residing … While the Oklahoma Constitution, Article X , Section 12 , clearly establishes the power and authority in the Oklahoma Legislature to provide for the levy and collection of license, franchise, gross revenue, excise, income

Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

262 F.R.D. 617 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 4, 2009

Accordingly, a party seeking work product immunity under Rule 26(b)(3) must establish that the materials are (1) “documents and tangible things;” 8 (2) “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial;” (3) “by or for … (Selection process can create opinion work product even though the documents themselves do not qualify for work product protection.)

Pray v. Kidd Williams Drilling Corporation

352 P.2d 380 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 1960

The evidence relied on by defendant to establish a condition precedent clearly contradicts the terms of the written contract, inasmuch as it attempts to relieve defendant of the liability imposed by the contract as to ^ths … Was defendant’s letter of March 19th, a qualified acceptance of the written contract, or a new proposal?

State v. McCray

15 Okla. Crim. 316 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 14, 1918

Wildman, the duly qualified and acting county attorney, in and for Creek county, state of Oklahoma, and upon his oath of office gives the district court of Creek county, state of Oklahoma, to know and be informed that William … Laws 1910, defines the term “maliciously,” when employed in the chapter relating to crimes against the property of another, to “import a wish to vex, annoy or injure another person, established either by proof or presumption

Brown v. State

743 P.2d 133 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 28, 1987

The appellant, however, has made no showing establishing that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard. See Foster v. … The Ake decision clearly qualified its holding by stating that: This is not to say, of course, that the indigent defendant has a constitutional right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to

SHAWAREB v. SSM HEALTH CARE OF OKLAHOMA

480 P.3d 894 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 2020

They argued plaintiffs' expert, a "certified nurse assistant" did not possess authority to prescribe or administer narcotics and was "clearly not qualified to render the neurologic and narcotics-related opinions relied upon … Defendants asserted plaintiffs did not produce any qualified expert testimony to support their claims.

Craig v. Wright

182 Okla. 68 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 8, 1938

Thus we will not discuss privilege, either absolute or qualified. As to the question of truth, the trial court submitted it to the jury, and they found from sufficient evidence that the publication; was true. … These motives for making the publication are clearly shown by the evidence.

Edwards v. State

94 Okla. Crim. 11 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 14, 1951

But clearly, such is not the situation confronting us herein. He further relies on the case of Padgett v. State, 90 Okla. … It Is an- established custom relied upon in every day transactions with the grocer, druggist, filling station operator, and all other sellers of merchandise to rely upon the brands which appear upon packages and cartons.