Case law

JM v. Herald Elementary School

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2025

STAT. tit. 51 §§ 151–172, immunizes them against Mills’s negligence claim. … The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.

Witaschek v. Sacramento County Bureau of Family Support (In Re Witaschek)

276 B.R. 668 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 12, 2002

Aguero, 1999 OKCIVAPP 38, ¶25, 976 P.2d 1088, 1094 (Okla.1999) (“[E]quitable defenses are not available to excuse noncompliance with a support order that is clearly supported by public policy.”). … At the Trial, BFS raised for the first time the issue of sovereign immunity and moved for dismissal.

Thomas v. Wal-Mart Associates Inc

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 29, 2023

“To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the [ADA], a plaintiff must show that (1) [s]he is disabled as defined under the [ADA]; (2) [s]he is qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation by the employer … A plaintiff “meets the requirement of being ‘regarded as having [a qualifying] impairment’ if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an

Zagaruyka and Associates v. HealthSmart Benefit Solutions Inc

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 25, 2019

Examining the factual allegations in this manner, a Rule 12(c) motion should be granted if “the moving party has clearly established that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and the party is entitled to judgment … However, the Kissee decision qualified its recognition of the common law by noting “that in Ro[d]gers v.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF SCOTT

2022 OK 67 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 2022

KANE, V.C.J.: ¶1 The dispositive issue is whether Petitioner qualifies for readmission. I. … Upon review, the PRT's conclusions as to Petitioner's lack of good moral character is clearly supported by the testimony and evidence from Petitioner's Reinstatement hearing. ¶27 As noted by the PRT, even after the Petitioner's

Johnson v. Grady County

50 Okla. 188 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1915

The universal and well-established rule is that taxes voluntarily paid cannot be recovered unless paid through mistake of fact and not of law, provided the mistake of fact was not caused by the taxpayer's own neglect of duty … The question now arises, and about which numerous inquiries have been made, is the present county assessor legally qualified from the 11th day of March, to proceed with the assessment, or does it become incumbent upon the

Martin v. Harrah Independent School District

543 P.2d 1370 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 4, 1975

It has long been established in Oklahoma that exhaustion of statutory administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite for resort to the courts. Sanders v. … These statutes give a federal right of action for the deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity *1376 secured by the U.S. Constitution.

Adams v. State

62 Okla. Crim. 167 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 16, 1937

There are certain exceptions to this general rule which are as well established as the rule itself. … Jurors are not prone to consider hidden, obscure phases of qualifying clauses.” The law with reference to justifiable homicide wasi presented fully in instruction No. 6, and the defendant took no exception to the same.

Tulsa Rock Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of Rogers County

531 P.2d 351 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 30, 1975

Tulsa Rock concludes that these sections forhid enactment of zoning ordinances prior to the establishment of such a comprehensive plan. In Higginbotham v. … Tulsa Rock’s Exhibit 11 reprints the July 6, 1971 letter of recommendations from the Planning Commission, which also does not use the qualifier “interim”. The foregoing does not invalidate the zoning resolution.

Cheney v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 3916 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 8, 1995

The evidence, as we have set forth above, clearly proved Cheney killed his wife with malice aforethought. … Nonetheless, Cheney's murder of his wife — while horrible and tragic — does not qualify for the death penalty under Oklahoma's aggravating circumstances.

Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Stanton

78 Okla. 167 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 20, 1920

It is clearly shown that for several hundred feet along the public highway the railroad track is not visible. … Some of plaintiff’s witnesses had, on former occasions, tested the speed of the train, and we are inclined to believe they were qualified to determine approximately the rate of speed the train was going at the time.

Matter of Estate of King

837 P.2d 463 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 11, 1991

After an appearance and denial of paternity, the court must order blood tests to determine paternity. [34] All of these provisions clearly contemplate that the alleged father is living. … The trial court order in this case is clearly contrary to law and should be reversed. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent and join in the dissent by Justice Kauger.

BRAMLETT v. STATE

2018 OK CR 19 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 31, 2018

In reviewing a trial court's decision, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Gomez , 2007 OK CR 33, ¶ 5 , 168 P.3d at 1141-42 . … "An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action made without proper consideration of the relevant facts and law, also described as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, clearly against the logic and

Estate of Costner v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

121 F.R.D. 690 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 18, 1988

Defense counsel’s allegations were buttressed by the record developed at the August 11, 1988 hearing, which clearly established gross deficiencies by plaintiff’s coun *692 sel in violation of this Court’s orders. 3 Specifically … The latter two lists were clearly in violation of this Court’s June 10,1988 witness list deadline.

Vanlandingham

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 18, 2026

When the testimony of an expert is challenged, the proponent of the testimony bears the burden of establishing its admissibility. United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234, 1241 (10th Cir. 2009) (en banc). … Furin’s initial report fails to clearly identify the basis for her opinions or explain how certain standards or her experience lead to the conclusions reached. Dr.

City of Mustang v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 163

184 P.3d 1098 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 3, 2008

The question of arbitrability, whether a collective bargaining agreement creates a duty for the parties to arbitrate the particular grievance, is an issue for judicial determination unless clearly provided otherwise. … IIL Craig's Grievance 123 The essence of Craig's grievance is that he received less than satisfactory performance evaluations and, as a result, did not qualify for a merit pay increase.

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Smith

141 Okla. 90 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 26, 1929

Thus proceeding, defendant first complains of the incompetency of plaintiff’s own testimony as to the value of the property involved at the time of loss, on the theory that plaintiff was not first qualified as an expert upon … except on the theory that from its investigation denial of liability had been decided upon at the time of the discovery of the automobile, and that this was not predicated upon failure t.o file proof of loss, but, as is clearly

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.

In Re Tindell

292 P.2d 1022 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 1, 1955

Infants, § 8, it is said: “ ‘It is the trial court’s duty to ascertain all the facts and to make such investigation as in its judgment will assist in reaching a proper conclusion as to the person who is best qualified to … The above quoted language of the Greenback case clearly demonstrates the error of the holding of the majority opinion. There is yet another reason, however, why the majority opinion is in error.

Neal v. Travelers Ins. Co.

188 Okla. 131 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 18, 1940

Such a determination of fact in a proper case by a court- having jurisdiction would clearly be res judicata. … Defendant’s second proposition is stated as follows: “Is the foreclosure judgment immune to collateral attack for the reason that it does not show the degree of blood of the defendant; is the plaintiff in this case estopped