Case law

McMurry v. Producers' Oil Co.

284 F. 181 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 12, 1922

Davidson are her duly qualified and acting guardians.” … Whilst Congress may make such provision, its intent to do so should be clearly manifested. The allottee is not only a citizen of the United States, but also a- citizen of the state.

Hooper v. State

68 O.B.A.J. 3623 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 21, 1997

The State’s expert was well qualified and had testified in numerous courts as a DNA expert. … The record does not clearly support Hooper’s assertion that counsel believed they could not afford to ask Dr. Murphy to examine Hooper.

Federal Surety Co. v. Little

156 Okla. 75 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 13, 1931

The evidence failed to establish that Little discharged Gosdin Brothers- or took charge of said building until after Gosdin Brothers had abandoned said work, without notice to Little, and failed and refused to carry out their … After the trial court felt that he was disqualified in this case, it was his duty to set aside his judgment and permit the parties to try their case before a qualified court.

In Re Adoption of MCD

42 P.3d 873 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 26, 2001

These three incidents are inadequate to establish that Wife abused her parental authority. … Clearly, this language indicates that the custodial parent need not have provided over half the support in fact.

GWACS Armory, LLC v. KE Arms, LLC

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 6, 2022

KEA argues that Anderson’s statements were made pursuant to a qualified privilege, if any privilege at all, and KEA asks the Court to deny GWACS’ motion to dismiss. … Anderson’s letter clearly related to potential litigation against KEA, but there nothing in the letter or KEA’s counterclaim suggesting that GWACS was contemplating litigation against Brownells.

St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Sutton

29 Okla. 553 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 28, 1911

The qualifying words do not change the rights of the parties under the charter. … State, cited in the main opinion, we repeat: “When such a point in the business of the road is reached, the right of the general public comes clearly into view and it is not for the railroad, but for the commission, to determine

Roxana Petroleum Corp. v. Hornberger

150 Okla. 257 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 16, 1931

Most clearly not. … The decision is clearly based (mi the proposition that, when application is made to the Commission to establish the injury, as well as to establish the extent of it, if for any reason relief is denied the claimant, that is

Sommer v. Sommer

947 P.2d 512 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 20, 1997

The Legislature clearly anticipated that support payments could be reduced to a judgment since it provided that: “An arrearage in payments of support reduced to judgment may be a lien against the real property of the person … The courts have a duty to provide an effective, realistic means for enforcing a support order, or the parent or former spouse for all practical purposes becomes immune from an order for support.

Mitchell v. Tulsa Water, Light, Heat & Power Co.

21 Okla. 243 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 15, 1908

was intended by the parties, and if not' directly expressed in the ordinance it was inadvertently omitted; but no rule is better settled by the courts than the principle that all grants which are against the state must be clearly … By the Constitution of Ohio, adopted in 1851, it was declared that no special privilege or immunity shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, *261 or repealed by the General Assembly.

Thomas L Pearson and the Pearson Family Members Foundation, The v. University of Chicago, The

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 5, 2024

In establishing TPI, the University was to establish three named professorships. (Doc. 401 ¶ 1 (citing Doc. 6 § 3.4).)1 Plaintiff alleges that two professors hired were unqualified. … Plaintiff’s most on-point case merely notes that “some circuits have encouraged district courts to take precautionary measures, including warning the jury about the witness’s dual roles or bifurcating the questioning to clearly

Johnson v. Walters

62 O.B.A.J. 3397 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 29, 1991

Any attempt to qualify the approval is null and the bill does not become law. It is as if the Governor had exercised a "pocket veto." … Under Wiseman, "[a] qualified approval is tantamount to a `pocket veto' and the bill does not become law." 614 P.2d at 555 . Therefore, no part of H.B. 1743 became law.

G.S. v. Ewing

786 P.2d 65 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 16, 1990

However, when the father tried to enroll A.H.B. in a pre-school program, he discovered that the child had not been given his regular immunizations — perhaps because of a previous allergic reaction. … However, according to well established precedent, [1] Oklahoma should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction. Under the circumstances of this case, Missouri is a more appropriate forum. 10 O.S. 1981 § 1609. [2] I.

Jolliff v. Rogers County Sheriff's Department, The

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 3, 2025

. § 1983, which provides a civil remedy for a “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” by a person acting under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff pled that she was not evaluated by a qualified medical professional while detained at the Jail. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 59, 63, 90.

State v. Coyle

7 Okla. Crim. 50 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 1912

This decision, rendered 20 years ago, has never been squarely followed by the Supreme Court of the United States, but, by numerous decisions, the general doctrine declared has been limited and qualified. Mr. … In this we think the lower court is clearly in error.

Barzellone v. Presley

126 P.3d 588 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 29, 2005

Those questions are clearly and definitely established by our fundamental law to a certainty as functions of the legislative department. 77 This Court has a duty to interpret statutes to make their application constitutional … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

Doe v. Oologah-Talala Independent School District No. 4 of Rogers County, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 29, 2024

Winters argues that he has immunity under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. Dkt. 31 at 7. … Schs., 321 F.3d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he law holding that sexual harassment is actionable as an equal protection violation has long been clearly established.”).

Panhandle Cooperative Royalty Company v. McLain

355 P.2d 1047 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 24, 1960

Section 1, of Pan’s by-laws provides for annual meetings of the stockholders on July 1st of each year and also provides for the election of directors at such meetings “to serve until their successors shall be elected and qualified … However, our examination of the entire record herein does not convince us that the trial court’s judgment to the effect that such was not McLain’s purpose, is clearly against the weight of the evidence.

Cook v. Oklahoma Board of Public Affairs

736 P.2d 140 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 31, 1987

An affirmance of the district court’s finding on this issue would clearly contravene the concept of freedom of contract. … The doctrine of sovereign immunity then in force precluded a tort claim against these governmental agencies. See Vanderpool v. State, Okl., 672 P.2d 1153 [1983], . Woodcrest Construction Company v.

DeMaro v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 29, 2021

The ALJ placed specific emphasis on Listing 1.00 et seq., Musculoskeletal system; Listing 11.00 et seq., Neurologic Disorders; and Listing 14.00, et seq., immune system disorders. (R. 21). … It is well established that all of the specified medical criteria must be matched to meet a listing. An impairment that manifests only some of the criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify. Sullivan v.

GRAHAM v. D & K OILFIELD SERVICES

2017 OK 72 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 19, 2017

Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence; 6. Arbitrary or capricious; 7. Procured by fraud; or 8. … Prior decisions of this Court, however, do not support Graham's assertions. ¶29 Early in the twentieth century, this Court established that Okla. Const. art. 2, § 6 was meant to serve as a limitation on the judiciary.