Case law

Allen v. Ramsey

170 Okla. 430 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 5, 1935

Blumberg might complain, but clearly, not the plaintiff, and fraud without damage does not confer a right of action.” In 5 R. C. … These authorities clearly hold that the formation of a conspiracy alone is not actionable, but that, it must be alleged and shown that damages resulted as a direct result of the conspiracy.

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

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.

Steeley v. State

17 Okla. Crim. 252 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 2, 1920

Goad was qualified to file the information and prosecute the case as county attorney. … The rule has long been firmly established that an attorney cannot represent conflicting interests or undertake to discharge inconsistent duties.

Emrit v. Jules

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 11, 2023

Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th Cir. 2002) (“The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction”). … Plaintiff states “this proceeding involves a discussion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, Fourth Amendment, and Privileges and Immunities

Davis v. State

268 P.3d 86 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 12, 2011

Persons who are not qualified to serve as jurors are: 5. … Moseley or another similarly qualified expert. Trial counsel did testify that she had used Ms.

Casey v. Self

62 O.B.A.J. 57 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 26, 1990

orderly disposition of property at death” 13 and the protection of “ ‘innocent adults and those rightfully interested in their estates from fraudulent claims of heirship and harassing litigation instituted by those seeking to establish … 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.

City of McAlester v. Fogg

312 P.2d 867 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1957

The interpretation of the statute established it as a departure from the common law rule that a municipality could only be sued in the county of its situs. … "Such construction should only be adopted where the Legislature has clearly expressed its intention.

Payne v. State

276 P.2d 784 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 13, 1954

Thereafter further attempts at delay were had by way of attempts to dis-* qualify the trial judge on the ground' of prejudice.. No adequate grounds for disqualification are shown. … Proof of venue could so easily have been established by positive and direct evidence.

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Giger

37 P.3d 856 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 19, 2001

A stipulation of fact is an agreement between the parties that establishes a particular fact or facts in controversy. … Pierce's grievance letter does not qualify. . Respondent was originally charged with actual physical control while under the influence of alcohol, but his blood alcohol test proved negative.

Cherry v. Godard

179 Okla. 158 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1936

purpose of establishing the proper rule to be applied to the' other. … This rule applies to statutes in which the limits of the power are clearly defined.

Boston v. Buchanan

75 O.B.A.J. 10 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 2003

After the trial judge conducted the hearing, he dismissed the case impliedly finding the plaintiffs had failed to establish "good cause" why the case should not be dismissed. … The identification of inherent power as that derived from equity and common law is clearly incorrect.

Gay v. Thomas

5 Okla. 1 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 4, 1896

The power to tax may be exercised oppressively upon persons or with regard to property, but if it do not clearly violate some established rule of limitation, the responsibility of the legislature is not to the courts but … Clearly, these are matters of detail within the legislative discretion and, therefore, of power in the lawmaking body within whose jurisdiction the parties live.

Stahl v. State

665 P.2d 839 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 22, 1983

Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245, 249 (9th Cir.1971), it was observed that `[t]he First Amendment has never been construed to accord newspersons immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. … No one can deny the long established right of the press in the United States to gather and disseminate news and information concerning every phase of human activity, together with the incidents pertaining thereto.

Hardesty v. State

291 P.2d 351 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 23, 1955

Hardesty, was the duly elected, qualified, and acting County Commissioner for District No. 1, of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, from July, 1949, up to and including the return of the indictment, and as such County Commissioner, … An examination of the indictment herein clearly establishes its sufficiency, and the evidence discloses no variance in the pleadings and the proof.

Keenan v. Barnhart

375 F. Supp. 2d 1335 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 28, 2003

However, as noted above, the regulation clearly states that “[tjhese final rules have only a prospective effect.” … A claimant who does not qualify for benefits under the listings ... still has the opportunity to show that his impairment in fact prevents him from working. Sullivan v.

Mitchell v. State

270 P.3d 160 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 13, 2011

Appellant objected to the testimony, arguing that Frer-ene was not an expert, was not qualified to identify bite marks, and that his testimony was an evidentiary harpoon. … It is well established that juries are presumed to follow their instructions.

OAK TREE PARTNERS, LLC v. WILLIAMS

458 P.3d 626 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 26, 2018

It then heavily qualified the remedy, at ¶¶ 21-22, as follows: There are limitations and qualifications to this general rule granting specific performance with abatement of a portion of the purchase price. … Williams states that this private right of action was established by Bowman .

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WEIGEL

321 P.3d 168 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 4, 2014

It is our responsibility to examine the record and assess the credibility and weight of the evidence in order to determine whether it clearly and convincingly establishes professional misconduct by the attorney and, if so … A violation of Rule 1.15(a) is established by the Respondent's failure to hold his clients' property separate from his own property.

FREDERICK v. STATE

2017 OK CR 12 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 25, 2017

Thus, he has not established prejudice sufficient to warrant relief. … An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the matter at issue or a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly