Case law

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.

Conwill v. Eldridge

71 Okla. 223 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 10, 1918

Clearly, the action of the court in so doing was authorized by defendants’ answer, for it, in effect, admitted their execution. … The fourth paragraph of the syllabus reads: “Although the answer of defendants contained a general denial, this was qualified by other aillegali|i'On'/S therein contained, which admitted all the essential facts necessary

Above it All Roofing & Constr., Inc. v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co.

285 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 5, 2018

The parties do not cite, nor has the court identified, any case determining whether "asbestos" qualifies as "pollutant" under Oklahoma law. … The alleged "property damage" to O'Keefe's merchandise clearly did not arise from the "inhal[ation]" or "ingesti[on]" of asbestos.

Midland Valley Railroad v. Watie

175 Okla. 402 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 18, 1935

O. title 45, secs. 51, 53, 54, and 56), establishing the rights, obligations, and liabilities of common carriers by railroad while engaged in interstate commerce for injuries received by their employees while employed by … The defendant argues: “The witness’ testimony shows clearly that he did not see the men walking with the fail and he was not qualified or competent to answer the question.

Sloan v. Mud Products, Inc.

114 F. Supp. 916 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 11, 1953

established by the letter agreement of October 5. 1948, which was entered into after Sloan became ill and was unable to supervise the manufacture of the valves. … Quite clearly discovery is something less than invention. Invention requires genius, imagination, inspiration, or whatever is the faculty that gives birth to the inventive concept.

Goudeau

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Dec 10, 2025

Thus, the State and its political subdivisions—including OCCJA—are immune from suit in tort unless the plaintiff satisfied the GTCA's conditions. See id. … In the absence of such allegations, Plaintiff has not plausibly shown that OCCJA's sovereign immunity has been waived with respect to her OADA claim.

McClain v. Ricks Exploration Co.

894 P.2d 422 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · May 10, 1994

The reeompletion attempts in the Springer formation failed and by January, 1981, Ricks decided to move uphole to recomplete the well to establish production. … Ricks is clearly an "owner of the right to drill and produce substituted for the first purchaser” under 52 O.S. 1981 , § 540.

Gille v. United States

838 F. Supp. 521 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 31, 1993

The specific issue is whether the information disclosed on the postal tracer forms qualifies as “return information” for purposes of the liability imposed by sections 7431 and 6103 of Title 26 of the United States Code. … At the same time, Congress clearly did not intend to impede the ability of the IRS to collect tax liabilities.

Question Submitted by: Senator Mary B. Boren, Oklahoma State Senate, District 16

2024 OK AG 5 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 28, 2024

Executive Director of the ODOT ¶8 The position of Executive Director of ODOT clearly meets each element of the foregoing Century Indemnity test. First, the position, is expressly established by ODOT's enabling statutes. … OAC 731:10-1-5(7). ¶18 The position of Executive Director of OTA is thus clearly established by law and provides definite duties. Therefore, the first two elements of the Century Indemnity test are met.

Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes

396 P.3d 210 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 16, 2017

Wedgewood Village, Inc. 32 The first statement is clearly incorrect based upon opinions since Culpepper which allow a party to invoke judicial discretion by a filing a motion to reconsider. … In the absence of evidence establishing the causation element of Plaintiffs’ prima facie case of medical negligence, evidence which must be proven through expert testimony, Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proof, and

Grist v. State

510 P.2d 964 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 21, 1973

State, Okl.Cr., 437 P.2d 461 , we stated: “The facts of our instant case clearly show that the police officers walked into the house which was the scene of the crime and made a general inquiry as to what had happened. … Defendant argues that the trial court should have sustained the motions in that she made proof by two qualified witnesses that she was legally insane at the *970 time of the commission of the offense and that the State thereafter

McMullan v. Enterprise Financial Group, Inc.

247 P.3d 1173 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 31, 2011

Clearly, the five elements of an insurance contract were present in the vehicle service contracts. 117 In Pugh v. … However, McMullan filed an amended petition on April 3, 2009, which clearly included the bad faith allegations. 3 .

Price v. State

9 Okla. Crim. 359 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 10, 1913

The charging part of the information in this case is as follows : “Comes now Robert Tarter, the duly qualified and acting county attorney in and for Pittsburg county, state of Oklahoma, and gives the superior court of Pittsburg … Under these authorities and upon every principle of reason and justice, both as a matter of fact and of law, appellant is clearly guilty of receiving stolen goods.

Francis v. Branson

168 Okla. 24 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 27, 1933

utterances " contained in the so-called dissenting opinion, nor could he even make a fair and . true report of his dissenting opinion, if' moved by malice, for even the doing of that is the exercise of only a prima facie, qualified … He alleged that continuously (fact) from time to time (fact) going over the state, and especially in certain named counties (fact, although the fact might turn upon a necessity of reference to the provisions of law establishing

Etter v. State

11 Okla. Crim. 208 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 5, 1914

It is. clearly apparent that these violators of the law knew that they were being stopped by the officers. Both were armed. … We must be able to say that the verdict' was clearly against the evidence. If not, it will be allowed to stand.

McCracken v. State

65 O.B.A.J. 3381 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 12, 1994

The extent of cross-examination rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and this Court will reverse only if that discretion is clearly abused, resulting in manifest prejudice to the accused. Hickerson v. … In this case, the jury was instructed that Appellant was presumed innocent unless his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hutchinson v. State

562 P.2d 867 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 29, 1977

After being qualified as an expert witness, Mr. Ballew testified that he had performed chemical analysis of the substances in the bags found under the front seat of the defendants’ car. … Additionally, it must be established that even with the exercise of due diligence the evidence could not have been produced at trial . . . (Emphasis added).

GOODWIN v. BLAKE

413 P.3d 894 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 30, 2017

Our prior Opinion clearly stated: Given that the right to use the section line for access is clearly conditioned on equitable principles, we find that the district court was required to inquire into the reasonableness of … This distinction was clearly drawn in the case of Hummel v. State , supra.