Case law

Traders Compress Co. v. Precure

107 Okla. 191 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1924

This act does not limit or attempt to limit the business of storing cotton for hire to public warehousemen, and there is nothing in the statute requiring those storing cotton for hire to qualify as public ware-housemen. … Section 57, art. 5. of the Constitution provides that every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.

Alverson v. State

70 O.B.A.J. 1566 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 6, 1999

(O.R.II at 328) Carlon admitted during her testimony that she was not even qualified to administer the MMPI. … To establish a prima facie case of a violation of the fair cross-section requirement, one must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is .

Cadle Co. v. King (In Re King)

272 B.R. 281 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 16, 2002

Turning first to the transfers from Jackson to the Debtor, the Court finds that they do not qualify as gifts under Duberstein . … Clearly he was attempting to place his personal funds, many of which came from Jackson and Lay, beyond the reach of Cadle and perhaps other creditors.

Davidson v. United States

236 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 17, 1964

No promises of immunity from prosecution or of securing a light sentence were made by the agent. … There is no evidence herein that the prisoner was taken advantage of in any way or manner and clearly his statements were made freely and .-voluntarily.

STEVENS v. FOX

2016 OK 106 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 11, 2016

We noted the framers of our Constitution clearly intended a separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Id. … This Court also determined Oklahoma's extant jurisprudence clearly delimits the Court's power over the Legislature, citing Jones v.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KAUFMAN

522 P.3d 487 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 2022

CONCLUSION ¶31 In the present case, the Complainant has established by clear and convincing evidence the Respondent's professional misconduct. … The agreement must clearly notify the client of any expenses for which the client will be liable whether or not the client is the prevailing party.

Mulford v. Neal

264 P.3d 1173 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 15, 2011

T23 This Court has often pronounced that the clearly articulated public policy underlying Oklahoma's compulsory insurance law is to establish a comprehensive compulsory liability insurance law for the benefit of the innocent … , for his regular use and does not qualify as a 'non-owned automobile'" AFR further argued that since the 1992 GMC Sierra truck was neither an owned nor a non-owned automobile, the driver is not an insured under Diann Neal's

United States v. Board of Com'rs of Osage County

193 F. 485 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Oklahoma · Dec 26, 1911

A conflict of terms is avoided by taking the former to refer to cases where the certificates are not issued and the latter to those where they have issued, and this is clearly the construction which should be adopted.- The … And, as the general reference to the trust in section 5 appears to be qualified by the words “as herein provided,” its scope may be consistently construed as confined to the reservations and to the lands not subject to alienation

Weinert v. Hedgecock

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Apr 29, 2024

The “denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983.” Gallagher v. … Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a), the amended complaint must be clearly legible, only one side of the paper may be used, and additional sheets of paper shall have margins of no less than one (1) inch on the top, bottom

Patterson v. Beall

71 O.B.A.J. 3016 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 14, 2000

Patterson failed to establish the first element of his private right of action under the OCPA—an unlawful practice. The trial court concluded that Mrs. … Many state consumer protection statutes do not specifically define what constitutes an unfair trade practice but instead provide broad protection and leave it to the courts to determine whether specific conduct qualifies.

Harris v. McCurtain County Jail Trust

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Feb 28, 2025

The nonmovant must then make a showing sufficient to establish an inference of the existence of each element essential to his case. Bolden v. PRC, Inc., 43 F.3d 545, 548 (10th Cir. 1994) (emphasis added). … immunity.

Morgan v. Morgan

438 P.3d 837 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 13, 2018

Moreover, there is a question about whether Mother would qualify for any such assistance that is based on a means test. … Dockets are established for administrative purposes. 20 O.S. Supp. 2000, 91.2(A). Thus, there is no jurisdictional conflict between divisions or dockets of the District Court.

Woodworth v. Franklin

85 Okla. 27 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 20, 1921

The whole object of the statute would bo frustrated if any substantive portion of the agreement could be established by parol evidence.” The Supreme Court of the United States, in Williams v. Morris, 95 U. … The rule in tikis jurisdiction is clearly announced in Levy v.

Davis

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Apr 15, 2026

Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff has relied on a proper source of federal rights, he has clearly not met the second prong of the Johnson test. … Conclusion Plaintiff has failed to establish a jurisdictional basis for the removal of his state court actions. As such, summary remand is required.

Sturgis v. State

2 Okla. Crim. 362 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 19, 1909

The Court: 'Well, is there a difference-as to what the facts are, or as to what the evidence that was introduced establishes?’ A. Juror: 'Yes, sir, as to what the evidence establishes.’ Q. … the- rights of the parties in accordance with the facts proven.’ • “The language of the Michigan statute on this subject is as follows: ‘The court shall in no-case orally qualify, modify or in any manner explain the written

Central Oklahoma Preservation Alliance, Inc. v. Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority

471 F. Supp. 68 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 24, 1979

Clearly, no environmental assessments or clearances were required with respect to these contract amendments, and likewise, they had no possible effect upon the Hales Building. … The relationship between OCURA and HUD is entirely contractual and is established by the Loan and Grant Contract and amendments thereto.

Marshall v. McAlester Corp.

438 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 19, 1977

The evidence does not establish unified operation. The court concludes, however, that the common control requirement has been met. “Separate management does not destroy common control. … The facts as found here conclusively show that defendant Hotels Service Company renders services to the Alsonett Hotels, including the Aldridge Hotel in McAlester, which clearly qualify as auxiliary services under the Act

Naill v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America

103 Okla. 179 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1924

Ed. 573 , and the line of cases cited by defendant are clearly not in point, and are not persuasive upon this court. … We think the evidence in the case at bar establishes the fact that the defendazit was ‘ doing business in Oklahoma.”

Arnold v. City of Seminole, Okl.

614 F. Supp. 853 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 10, 1985

Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by proving: “(i) that [s]he belongs to a protected minority; (ii) that [s]he applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite … The chiefs and the city managers were clearly unwilling to confront the problem and the problem-makers, in particular, Lt. Herdlitchka.

Flores v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 2161 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 27, 1995

Most any person qualified to sit on a jury in this country is familiar with the phrase that a criminal defendant is “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” … Our message to the prosecution is that it should join with the defense in objecting to a clearly erroneous instruction.