Case law

WELLS FARGO BANK v. TAYLOR

417 P.3d 1212 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 9, 2018

Thus, Plaintiff satisfied its burden of establishing standing when it filed its foreclosure petition. See Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. … We find that, in this case, the contract is ambiguous if the named mortgagee does not qualify as a mortgagee pursuant to Oklahoma law.

STATE v. CRAWFORD

2026 OK CR 4 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 5, 2026

Upon an order, decision or judgment finding that a defendant is immune from or not subject to criminal prosecution. 22 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1053 State v. … Their effect is clearly inhibitive; rather than facilitating the illumination of truth, they shut out the light . . . Nevertheless, rules of privilege are not without a rationale.

Arvest Bank v. SpiritBank, N.A.

191 P.3d 1228 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 11, 2008

. ¶ 22 Looking at the character of the matter as a whole, we conclude that TSI’s claims, and later Spirit’s claims, against Arvest did *1234 not seek to establish personal liability for a debt but to determine entitlement … Clearly, Arvest finds fault in the OAG-TSI transactions, but the Court is quite capable of determining the effect of the transactions and such characterizations, while colorful, do not advance legal analysis of the priority

McLaughlin v. Yingling

90 Okla. 159 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1923

It wa® established, he reasoned, that a limitation of ;a term to A., a living person, for life, and then to B. on A.’s death, was good. … If it may possibly happen beyond the established time limits or if there is left any room for uncertainty or doubt on the point, the limitation is void.

In Re DBW

616 P.2d 1149 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 14, 1980

It is required by 43A O.S.Supp. 1977 § 54.1(C) that the court shall first hold a probable cause hearing on the petition to establish whether the person in custody needs treatment. … NOTES [1] This collateral consequences doctrine was clearly espoused in In re Ballay, 482 F.2d 648 (D.C.

TRUSTY v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY

2016 OK 94 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 20, 2016

Such rules are necessary in order to make a statutory scheme fully operative. 24 ¶16 Clearly, the Legislative and Board directive is that DPS show whomever withdrew blood for a blood alcohol test complied with the Board's … The right to establish any aspect of general policy by legislation, notwithstanding any delegation of rulemaking authority; 3.

Pezold, Richey, Caruso & Barker v. Cherokee Nation Industries, Inc.

73 O.B.A.J. 1189 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 12, 2001

. ¶ 6 CNI seeks review of that order, contending the trial court erred in awarding fees under § 936 because Law Firm's action was not in the nature of a collection on an established debt, but an equitable action brought to … However, the Cherokee Nation was not required to pay the fees because of sovereign immunity. See September 7, 2000 Opinion in Case No. 94,054. CNI does not dispute that the fees were incurred by Law Firm.

Strong v. Oklahoma Publishing Co.

66 O.B.A.J. 2577 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 20, 1995

At the outset, it might have been arguable that a member of a small school board might not qualify as a public figure because of the lack of the substantial responsibility requirement. … The debate may be whether a night watchman is a public official, but clearly the Plaintiff here meets the test of one who’s position must be one which would invite public scrutiny and discussion of the person holding it,

Norman v. Trison Development Corp.

832 P.2d 6 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 12, 1992

that: (1) Norman failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because Trison had been discharged and the receivership terminated, thus putting an end to the receiver’s liability qua receiver; (2) Trison was immune … Evidence extrinsic to the record proper is clearly necessary to establish that order’s fatal jurisdictional infirmity vis-a-vis Norman’s tort claim interest.

Dye

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 24, 2026

Plaintiffs accuse Allstate of ignoring the allegations of their petition, and they argue that they have alleged that they clearly asked Willis to procure an insurance policy that would cover their home for replacement cost … The record clearly shows that Willis initially obtained a policy with full roof replacement, and Willis and Allstate notified plaintiffs in 2022 that their home no longer qualified for full replacement coverage.

Keene v. Berkley Casualty Company

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 30, 2024

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has construed this statute as requiring the claimant to establish four elements to trigger UM/UIM coverage: (1) the injured person is an insured 3 Under 10th Cir. … The Motion argues that the district court in Anaya-Smith wrongly held that an immune tortfeasor is the equivalent of an uninsured driver for the purpose of a UM claim under § 3636. See Doc. 7 at 7.

City of Tecumseh v. City of Shawnee

148 Okla. 128 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 17, 1931

That section not only au tliorizes the changing of a county seat designated in the Constitution and the p’ oeedure therefor, but its context clearly disclose; (hat the designation in the Constitution of a county seat was … It is subject to change by the qualified electors in the manner therein provided.

Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Latty

77 Okla. 156 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 6, 1920

support of the contention, Thompson on Negligence, sec. 2712, which is as follows; “The duty of a common carrier of passengers to provide a reasonably safe place for receiving and discharging his passengers, can have but a qualified … In the case last cited it is said: ‘It should also be remembered that the defendant’s cars were drawn by horses, and operated without regular stations or established places for passengers to get on or off the ears.

Heldmann v. Southwestern Oklahoma State University College of Pharmacy

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 26, 2020

Nor has Congress abrogated states’ sovereign immunity through enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Berry, 495 F. App’x at 921– 22. … It is well established that the Court need not accept conclusory allegations as true. Hall v.

Scribner v. State

3 Okla. Crim. 601 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 31, 1910

Such a statement as this is the first step toward lynch law, and if recognized by this court, would wipe out and destroy every constitutional right, and would establish a precedent which, if followed, would result in arbitrary … This instruction is only advisory, and qualifies and is contradictory of the first portion of the instruction, which correctly states the law.

Miller v. Legacy Bank

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 4, 2023

See 1 To establish a prima facie ECOA claim, a plaintiff must plead factual allegations demonstrating, inter alia, that the loan application was rejected despite the plaintiff’s qualifications. … Although Plaintiff claims that Defendant “has admitted clearly and unambiguously that [he] was qualified for the loan and that the Lottie property was sufficient collateral,”3 the current record reflects otherwise.

Turner v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Muskogee

262 P.2d 897 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 23, 1953

Such a theory would destroy the freedom of election clearly intended by the statute. … We think the well established facts show that Mrs. Turner was not interested in leaving her estate to her own relatives.

Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

305 P.3d 1004 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 2013

Therefore, we find the first Mendoza-Martinez factor clearly favors a punitive effect. 2. … And the duration of the reporting requirement is keyed not to any determination of a particular offender's risk of reoffending, but to whether the offense of conviction qualified as aggravated.

Bruner

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 1, 2026

Petitioner argues this was “clearly erroneous” as “there is a Covid-19 mandate” in that case. Id. … Here, Petitioner fails to establish this Court’s jurisdiction.

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. McElreath

69 Okla. 9 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 6, 1917

Unless claims are so made, the carrier shall not be lia- > * * * “The decisions also established that the question as to the proper construction of the bill of lading is a federal question. … . * * * When the goods have been misdelivered, there is as *12 clearly a 'failure to make delivery’ as when the goods have been lost or destroyed; and it is quite as competent in the one case as in the other for the parties