Case law

Pikas v. Williams Companies, Inc.

822 F. Supp. 2d 1163 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2011

The weight of Circuit case law holds a cause of action accrues at the time when the facts, not the law, establishing an ERISA violation become known to the beneficiary. Meagher v. … Thus, with regard to Pikas, his claim was not clearly repudiated until after Williams denied his administrative claim on April 22, 2004.

Kline v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Water Resources Board

759 P.2d 210 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 23, 1988

The Board’s order established the maximum annual yield of fresh ground water from the alluvium and terrace deposits of the Beaver-North Canadian River in five counties in northwestern Oklahoma. … The Board clearly met its burden of proof by substantial evidence.

Wallace v. Transport Life Insurance Co.

841 P.2d 613 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 25, 1992

Rule 72 was promulgated by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to 36 O.S.Supp. 1990 § 3611(B)(4) which reads: The department [Insurance Commission] shall adopt rules and regulations which establish minimum standards … The Plan clearly provides for a reduction of disability payments as a result of Social Security benefits, if a claimant is entitled to Social Security.

BMB Aircraft, LLC v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

369 P.3d 60 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 18, 2016

To have at least some "persuasive value, the administrative construction must have been reasonable and not clearly wrong. … Even viewing the facts in a light most favorable to BMB, the aircraft in question "does not clearly come within the meaning of the language used," Am.

Opinion No. 76-174 (1976) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 5, 1976

The federal administrative regulations implementing the federal law are set forth in 45 CFR, part 177, and provide the terms and conditions under which such state guaranteed loan programs qualify for the federal benefits … It clearly appears from the agreement that so long as lenders participate in the Student Loan Program, they have the obligation to make a reasonable collection effort and the State Regents have the obligation to guarantee

In Re Swaim

66 Okla. Crim. 30 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 7, 1939

hogs conducted in establishment 20-Q storage quarters located in building 2, establishment 20-Q as provided for in said license. … That the meaning of “post mortem examinations of hyper immune hogs conducted in establishment 20-Q storage quarters located in building 2, establishment 20-Q” is that Fidelity Laboratories, Inc., was authorized by said license

DOE v. THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. OF TULSA

2017 OK 106 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 2017

We went further: "The First Amendment clearly safeguards the freedom to worship as well as the freedom not to worship ." Id. … I, qualifies under "unless otherwise provided by law." See Reeds , 2006 OK 43 at ¶11; U.S. Const. art.

City Nat. Bank of Fort Smith v. Incorporated Town of Kiowa

104 Okla. 161 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 14, 1924

The correctness of the first statement does not include or establish the correctness of the second statement" as a necessary corollary, but the correctness of the second statement may include the correctness of the first … a grant of power to municipalities in furtherance of public policy, and since the impairment or destruction of public service, or the diversion of public funds to purposes other than those for which they are voted, are clearly

HOBSON v. CIMAREX ENERGY CO.

453 P.3d 482 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 17, 2019

Cimarex responded that a future interest owner does not qualify as a surface owner under the SDA. … Likewise, Black's explains that [o]wnership of property is either absolute or qualified.

Hubbard v. Hubbard

603 P.2d 747 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 13, 1979

In an attempt to establish the future income of Dr. Hubbard, the testimony of Dr. Turner Bynum was offered. Dr. Bynum is an Oklahoma City medical doctor who specializes as an internist. … He was also qualified to state his knowledge of what incomq could be expected from emergency room duty. The trial court did not err in admitting his testimony. III.

Jones v. State

764 P.2d 914 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 17, 1988

This type of problem can easily be avoided by attaching qualifiers to such statements such as “The evidence shows ...” or “I believe that the evidence clearly shows_” In the instant case, the abovementioned statements were … Specifically, he argues that the State failed to establish the essential element of sexual intercourse and that the testimony of the State’s witnesses was highly contradictory and thus could not have established his guilt

Hess v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

221 P.3d 132 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 21, 2009

Id. 121 The Sugarman holding is clearly inconsistent with Oklahoma law. … Clearly, all potential class members will prove their core liability claims using the same legal theory and evidence.

Davenport v. State

806 P.2d 655 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1991

PARKS, Presiding Judge, dissenting: The threshold test for determining the admissibility of testimony by a qualified expert is whether the scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact … Scientific evidence “must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in a particular field ...” Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923).

Fulton v. People Lease Corp.

241 P.3d 255 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 5, 2010

Intentional conduct "when done without just cause or excuse," as required for a malicious wrong claim, clearly equates to conduct that is "not justifiable." … Even though the latter individual clearly had no authority to hire, fire, demote, or discipline the other lifeguards, the U.S.

Postelle v. State

267 P.3d 114 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 29, 2011

When the mistake was brought to his attention, he substituted the question prescribed by OUJI-CR(2d) 1-5 for qualifying capital case jurors. … She entered into an immunity agreement in August 2005 providing for her full cooperation with the State to prosecute these murders in exchange for immunity from prosecution for any crimes she could be held liable for stemming

Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Kendall

96 Okla. 194 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 20, 1923

If untrue, they may come within the qualified privilege. The above questions are not involved in this case. … Y.) 149, it is said: “The rale is stated in the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure tvol. 25, p. 401) as follows : ‘The interests of society require that immunity should be granted to the discussion of public affairs and that

Padillow v. State

501 P.2d 837 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 27, 1972

Defendant’s first proposition in his. brief asserts the jury was qualified for the death penalty in violation of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Witherspoon v. … It is clearly within the discretion of the trial court how much latitude will be allowed for such rebuttal; and unless it clearly appears that such discretion is abused, this Court will not reverse the trial court decision

St. Louis, I. M. S. Ry. Co. v. Weldon Et Ux.

39 Okla. 369 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 6, 1913

“Where it clearly appears that a fire was started on the right of way of a railroad by a passing locomotive, which extended to and destroyed adjoining property, and the company, on the trial of an action against it, produces … Such evidence is not competent, unless on a subject calling for opinion evidence, and then the witness must qualify himself before he will be allowed to testify.

Marshall v. Homier

13 Okla. 264 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 10, 1903

can be fully compensated in damages, the order of the judge dissolving the temporary injunction was clearly right. … Section 10, session laws' of 1897, page 94, provides: “ ‘Appurtenances/ unless otherwise qualified, shall mean all improvements and every right of whatever character pertaining to the premises described.”

State Ex Rel. Cartwright v. Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority

613 P.2d 476 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 17, 1980

Both are clearly distinguishable. The case of Application of Board of Regents, 595 P.2d 785 (Okl.1979) was decided primarily on 70 O.S. Supp.1973 § 4001, not 17 O.S.Supp.1975 § 160.1. … There is no evidence or any reasonable inference to infer the 00WA qualifies for an exemption. REVERSED AND REMANDED. WILLIAMS, BARNES, SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., concur. LAVENDER, C. J., IRWIN, V. C.