Case law

Heiling-Friess v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 15, 2024

Plaintiff alleges that she has been unable to work since February 18, 2019, due to shingles, post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), insomnia, migraines, and weakened immune system. R. 231, 265. … There is no magic number that qualifies as a “significant number” of jobs. See Trimiar v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1326, 1330 (10th Cir. 1992).

Hooks v. Workman

693 F. Supp. 2d 1280 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 26, 2010

Petitioner has not demonstrated the OCCA’s determination to be contrary to, or an unreasonable of, clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court. … Prater, or more importantly, that the OCCA’s determination was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 3.

Adair v. Clay

780 P.2d 650 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 29, 1989

If such revaluation proceeds through the several classes of property in the same order as the last, all property will be valued every five years and it does not matter where the process begins, but § 2481.1 clearly provides … As we stated in Melvin, 607 P.2d at 697 : “[E]qual treatment is established by regular, cyclical revaluation.

Johnson v. Hillcrest Health Center, Inc.

74 O.B.A.J. 655 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 18, 2003

to establish the cause of an objective injury where there is other competent evidence to establish the cause with reasonable certainty.]; See, Strubhart v. … Porter is clearly distinguishable from the present cause on its facts.

Murphy v. Sirmons

497 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 1, 2007

The Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, discussed what can be considered “clearly established Federal law” relevant to death penalty cases. … Respondent again asserts the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable determination of clearly established federal law.

Brown v. Bradley

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2020

Cox argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, in order to escape dismissal, Mr. Brown must not only plead facts establishing an equal protection violation, his allegations must show that Ms. … Cox acted in a manner that violated clearly established law. See Price-Cornelison v.

Reeves

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 26, 2026

Defendants ask the Court to dismiss plaintiff’ s claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Monroe and Najera also argue that they have qualified immunity from plaintiff's claims. … The allegations necessary to establish a § 1983 violation “will vary based on the constitutional provision at issue.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 676.

Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Cozart

59 Okla. 136 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 13, 1916

The evidence further established that the plaintiff had made some inquiry in regard to whether or not the wheat had been weighed in transit; but it clearly appeared from the evidence that, very shortly after the receipt of … ) to the Interstate Commerce Act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, sec. 20, 24 Stat. 383 ), with relation to this provision: ■ “The liability imposed by the Carmack Amendment is that of the common law, and it may be limited or qualified

Strelecki v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

872 P.2d 910 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 23, 1994

Supreme Court struck it as invalid, holding the state tax statute violative both of § 111 and of the constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity embodied in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. … Barker holds that a state violates intergovernmental tax immunity and 4 U.S.C. § 111 when it taxes the benefits received from the United States by military retirees but does not tax the benefits received by retired state

Burke v. Donnermeyer

448 P.2d 446 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 17, 1968

Both pleadings contained qualified, general, denials, accompanied by special denials that said defendants made any false, or fraudulent, representations that were designed to, or did, induce plaintiffs to enter into their … We therefore hold that the judgment of the trial court is clearly against the weight of the evidence, and represents a misapplication of our statutes and previous decisions to the preponderance thereof.

THACKER v. WALTON

491 P.3d 756 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 3, 2020

Krimbill , 2018 OK CIV APP 37 , ¶15, 417 P.3d at 1246 . 8 If Thacker establishes his claims in accord with § 1434(C), the next consideration to address would be whether Walton and Singer established by a preponderance of … Under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution, "[t]he relative importance to the State of its own law is not material when there is a conflict with a valid federal law," for "any state law, however clearly within

METCALF v. METCALF

465 P.3d 1187 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 14, 2020

In Larman , the lender required that in order to qualify, both spouses had to be record owners and sign the loan related documents. … Clearly, this appeal was not frivolous or without merit because the trial court is reversed.

Neal

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2026

Stephens’s rights, and (4) Officers Cunningham and Francis are entitled to qualified immunity. Judge Erwin recommends granting summary judgment only in favor of Officer Francis. … district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate.5 Discussion To establish

Cavett v. Territory

1 Okla. Crim. 493 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 1908

No such claim is made, and the record shows that all the jurors were men well qualified to act as grand jurors. The accused was in no manner injured in his substantial rights. … accused is shown by his testimony, „in which he says, in answer to questions, as shown on page 309 of the record: “How long was it after you 'had your trouble somewhere about four years ago until your friendly relations were established

Rhine v. State

336 P.2d 913 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 3, 1958

John’s Hospital in Tulsa, qualified as an outstanding authority in that field. … State, 20 Ariz. 176 , 178 P. 776 , and the state contends that the facts of this case bring it clearly within this exception.

Hartman v. United States

923 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 8, 2013

OCAT entered into a contract work plan with the USDA, which expressly included Wiley Post and employed an FAA-qualified wildlife biologist. … Plaintiffs’ response is argumentative and clearly is not a proper refutation of paragraph 26 of defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, which is supported by evidence in the record; and which clearly pertains to hazards

Cummings v. Minnesota Life Insurance

711 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 3, 2010

. # 21, 22], Plaintiff, as beneficiary, alleges he was improperly denied accidental death benefits under a qualified employee benefit plan sponsored by defendant. … “[A]n ERISA provider is required to clearly delineate the scope of its obligations.” Id. at *1293 1319.

Davis v. Banks

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 1, 2025

However, even with this Court’s leniency on Plaintiff’s obvious Rule 8 violations, Plaintiff’s Complaint is also clearly deficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6). b. Fed. R. Civ. … OKDHS and, in turn, CSS are tasked by statute with establishing and enforcing child support obligations in Oklahoma. See 56 Okla. Stat. § 237.

CITY OF TULSA v. O'BRIEN

2024 OK CR 31 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 5, 2024

Further, the analysis in the Tenth Circuit's opinion establishes that Tulsa's Curtis Act arguments are without merit. Proposition III is denied. … Supreme Court has continued to use Duro 's rationale even after the superseding legislation, clearly indicating Congress merely changed the outcome as it applied to tribal jurisdiction over non-member Indians.

Catlett v. Jordan

206 Okla. 473 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 26, 1952

Clearly, a joint adventure arose by reason of this fact situation. The rules applied above have been recognized by many courts of last resort and were applied in the case of Kasishke v. … All the stock in these companies, other than the qualifying shares issued to Baker, were issued to Kasish-ke and his wife. Moreover, all the stock issued to Mrs.