Case law

Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Carselowey

40 F.2d 540 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 1930

Clearly, eoal underlying land is a part of it, and, as such, is taxable as real estate. … Complainant has submitted authorities in contending that it is not engaged in business in Oklahoma, but in my opinion none establishes that contention.

Rhoades v. Stitt

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 8, 2021

Stat. tit. 47, § 2-102 does not supply Rhoades with a property interest and that even if it did, each Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.1 Rhoades responds by arguing that the Governor does not have the … In other   1 The Court need not address the qualified immunity arguments because the Governor’s termination of a purely executive officer is not subject

Western Star Finance, Inc. v. White

71 O.B.A.J. 1633 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2000

We affirm because the record before the trial court established the existence of issues of material fact. T2 Lender sued Chaser Truck & Diesel, Inc. (Chaser), on a note and joined the Whites as guarantors. … The trial court may exercise discretion to change its determination of a summary judgment motion by granting new trial "unless it clearly appears that the court erred in some pure, simple and unmixed question of law, or acted

McDermott, II v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 24, 2023

The “denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983.” Gallagher v. … Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a), the amended complaint must be clearly legible, only one side of the paper may be used, and additional sheets of paper shall have margins of no less than one (1) inch on the top, bottom

O'Rourke v. Tulsa County

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 6, 2019

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam) (“[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.”); Ysais v. New Mexico, 373 F. … Nor does it clearly appear to seek prospective injunctive relief.

Caples v. State

3 Okla. Crim. 72 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 18, 1909

So this clause of the Constitution clearly does not require an information to begin with “The State of Oklahoma.” … Evidence may be clearly inadmissible for one purpose, and the same evidence may. be entirely proper for another purpose.

Horath v. Pierce

506 P.2d 548 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 30, 1973

The trial court’s discretion, absent clear and prejudicial abuse thereof, in allowing litigants additional time within which to answer, reply or perform other acts is clearly established by 12 O.S.1961 § 284, as follows : … Hittenmeyer, 195 Okl. 669 , 161 P.2d 749 , this Court stated in part at p. 750: “Apart from the qualifying effect, if any, of the curative provisions of the 1939 Act, to which we will revert later, it must be assumed, as

Ashinsky v. State

780 P.2d 201 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 15, 1989

We find that Appellant has failed to establish any of the criteria required for admissibility under this rule or that “Monk” was a real person. … The record does not support a finding that the alleged informant, Jessie Favier, provided evidence against Appellant for pay or for immunity from punishment.

Fent v. Contingency Review Board

163 P.3d 512 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 1, 2007

. *518 The enactment establishes explicit criteria for determining whether proposed expenditures are expected to result in a substantial economic benefit to the State. … The funding of state programs is clearly a matter publici juris. 30 The Legislature has appropriated $45,000,000 to the Opportunity Fund for the development of economic activity in the State.

Gooch v. Natural Gas Supply Co.

175 Okla. 153 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 12, 1935

Plaintiff had the burden of establishing- the first, defendant the second. We think plaintiff failed and defendant succeeded. … The certificate was clearly a forgery and worthless. Plaintiff *156 was clearly a victim of the fraud of Burns and Reardon, for which the defendant is not liable. Plaintiff presents two assignments of error.

Daniel v. Daniel

72 O.B.A.J. 3708 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 2001

as may be just and proper under the cireum-stances. 32 8 Counsel-fee allowances claimed in matrimonial disputes under § 110 do not depend on one's status as prevailing party, but may be granted only to that litigant who qualifies … Owens, 1927 OK 203, ¶ 9 , 126 Okla. 37 , 258 P. 879 [Supreme Court is the head of state's judicial system and other courts established by state law are inferior to Supreme Court.]. 13 . Okla. Const. art.

Phillips v. Williams

608 P.2d 1131 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 19, 1980

Consideration for release, via CRC docketing endorsement, clearly does not rise to the same level of interest that attaches to a parole consideration opportunity under the Forgotten Man statute, supra. … If he had not qualified, a CRC member is not authorized to vote for him.

Oklahoma Nursing Home Ass'n v. Demps

792 F. Supp. 721 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 28, 1992

Medicaid is a cooperative federal-state program through which the federal government provides financial assistance to states, to enable states to furnish medical care to qualifying individuals. … Although the Housing Act itself made no reference to utilities, the Act’s implementing regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development clearly defined “rent” as including a reasonable amount for the use of

Murphy v. Colton

4 Okla. 181 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1896

The administrators ■qualified in February, 1893, and this suit was tried in November, 1893, and it is insisted that the presentation of these claims to the administrators was a pre-requisite to setting them up as set-offs … The finding must be regarded as a general one, and unless we can clearly see error in that, there can be no reversal on account of the findings from the evidence.

Neuendorf

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 2, 2026

They also argue that even if plaintiff states a valid claim on any of the alleged counts, the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity and are statutorily immune from suit in their official capacities for the … With respect to plaintiff’s claim arising under § 1983 claim (claim one), the defendant officers invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity and assert that plaintiff has failed to meet her burden on 2 The defendant officers

Tudor v. State

14 Okla. Crim. 67 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1917

At the trial he interposed a defense of alibi and introduced a number of witnesses to establish the fact that he was in Guymon upon the night of the theft and was there all night. … All of the jurors complained of, except probably one, were qualified under, the doctrine declared by this court in many cases, the last being Horn v. State, decided at the May term of the court, 13 Okla.

STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF INST., SOC. & REHAB. SERV. v. Griffis

545 P.2d 763 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 9, 1975

(e) That it is the desire of the petitioners that the relationship of parent and child be established between them and the child. … The adoption statutes clearly do not permit any interpretation which would derogate the constitutionally vested jurisdiction of the trial judge and allow a delegation of this decision making power to the Department or to

Satellite System, Inc. v. Birch Telecom of Oklahoma, Inc.

73 O.B.A.J. 1979 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 2, 2002

in aid of the general statutes of Oklahoma_” Thus, “[t]he common law remains in force in this state, unless a statute explicitly provides to the contrary.” 10 A legislative intention to abolish a common law right must be clearly … applying to all customer’s contracts, which are on file and approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission limit the amount of its liability for injuries resulting from omissions and mistakes ... so long as it does not seek immunity

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING COLEMAN

2019 OK 77 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 3, 2019

While the majority may conclude that the allegations forwarded by the Council on Judicial Complaints do not qualify as "removable" offenses, the result of this conclusion is that the responding judge is forever procedurally … The complaint clearly sets forth facts that would leave open the legitimate possibility of either removal and/or lesser sanctions and/or exoneration.

Stuckert v. Alexander

4 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 3, 1933

“When the receiver was appointed and had qualified, this had the effect to put the property of the partnership in custodia legis. Texas Trunk Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 81 Tex. 8 , 16 S.W. 647 , 26 Am. St. Rep. 776 . … The system-established in Booth v.