Case law

Edwards v. Thrash

26 Okla. 472 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 31, 1910

Besides, it is suggested that, where such a qualified fee in the city as we are now considering exists; The re-versionary right of the owner of the fee in the surface -of the street is too remote and contingent to be of any … All the courts seem to hold that,- under such constitutional provisions, consequential damages arising from the change of an established grade may be recovered by the abutting owner.

Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Jackson

63 Okla. 32 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 9, 1917

Trevanion, still serves to indicate clearly and concisely the principle of the exception. Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1747. … This it was sought to establish by inference based on inadmissible proof.

Taylor v. Anderson

197 F. 383 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 4, 1911

That portion of the petition upon' which plaintiffs rely as establishing their contention that the suit aris'es tinder the Constitution or laws of the United States is as follows :. ' ¡ “That, plaintiffs derived title to … public proclamation that the same shall be voted upon at any special election to be held for that purpose within thirty days thereafter, on a certain day therein named; and all male 'citizens of each of the said tribes qualified

Craft v. Galutza

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 24, 2021

The Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such … 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.

United States v. $189,825.00 in United States Currency

8 F. Supp. 2d 1300 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 3, 1998

Once probable cause for forfeiture has been established, claimants may recover the defendant property only by establishing a defense to forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. $149,442.43 in U.S. … Agent Judd was qualified as an expert on drug-related matters under Fed.R.Evid.- 702 and the Court finds his testimony credible.

Marshall v. Nelson Electric

766 F. Supp. 1018 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 21, 1991

Injuries to the nervous system and mental pain are physical injuries which also qualify as severe emotional distress. … Nelson Electric established a proper non-discriminatory economic motive for laying Marshall off in August, 1986 and June, 1987.

Wolfe v. Barnhart

354 F. Supp. 2d 1226 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2004

and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be - (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Sanjour clearly concerned a specific issue — reimbursement of travel expenses for unofficial writing, teaching or speech.

Primeaux v. State

75 O.B.A.J. 1179 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 6, 2004

Clearly, the Information is sufficient to give the defendant notice. … While all real guns (and even some toys guns) probably qualify as "firearms" for the purpose of a "robbery with a dangerous weapon" offense, all knives do not necessarily qualify as "dangerous weapons" for the purpose of

Keel v. Wright

66 O.B.A.J. 868 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 7, 1995

Thus if we use the date of notice established by counsel's affidavit, May 20 is thirty-one days after April 19, 1993. … However, the section clearly tells us that after October 1, 1993 a motion for costs, attorney's fees, or interest as well as any decision on such motions shall not affect the time to appeal.

Harris v. United States

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 29, 2024

. § 4A1.1(d), establishing a total criminal history score of 14 and a criminal history category of VI. … guilty to the § 922(g)(1) charge and the court has rejected his constitutional challenge to the § 922(g)(1) conviction, defendant’s challenge to the government’s ability to satisfy the third element at trial is clearly

Coffey v. Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc.

623 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 27, 2009

The court finds that activity suffices to establish Oklahoma as BZC’s principal place of business. … As the sole owner and operator of the smelter, BZC clearly played a principal role in the alleged contamination.

Central Okl. Preservation A. v. OKL. CITY, ETC.

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.

Taylor v. McDaniels

139 Okla. 262 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 24, 1929

The facts present a qualified privilege. Billings v. Fairbanks, 139 Mass. 66 , 29 N. E. 544 . … That is clearly answered by the record. Crawford testified: l,A. Well, along about that time, Mr.

Romano v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 4015 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 1995

However, the other evidence clearly supports the inference Appellant was present at and participated in stabbing decedent. Therefore, it cannot be said Bevel’s final answer determined the verdict. … However, Howe’s testimony both in camera and before the jury clearly shows Woodruff acted prior to any contact with Appellant and obviates a finding of continuing conspiracy.

Young

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Dec 1, 2025

Matthew does not believe she is qualified to render an expert opinion on causation. Doc. 169 at 2. As such, Dr. … Matthew’s testimony cannot be used establish the causation element of Plaintiffs’ claims.

Jacobs v. State Ex Rel. Weatherford (In Re Jacobs)

149 B.R. 983 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 29, 1993

Nor does the State of Oklahoma’s sovereign immunity protect the Commissioner from an action for injunctive relief, 11 U.S.C. § 106 (c), In re Crook, 966 F.2d 539 , 541-543 (10th Circ.1992), In re Mas-senzio, 121 B.R. p. 693 … Grimes, 672 P.2d 323, 325 (Okl.App.1983), license revoked where evidence “clearly demonstrates a course of conduct ... over an extended period of time that was incompatible with ... good faith and fair dealing ... ”; Fisher

Cherokee Nation, The v. Bernhardt

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 24, 2020

parcel into trust, in which the Assistant Secretary stated that 25 U.S.C. § 476(f),5 an amendment to the IRA enacted in 1994, mandates that the government shall not “classif[y], enhance[], or diminish[] the privileges and immunities … No reservation has ever been established by treaty, Executive Order, or Secretarial Order for the UKB tribe.

Miller v. United States

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Dec 15, 2023

The Government alleges that “[t]he record in this case clearly establishes Mr. Widell and Ms. … Clearly, Defendant’s first allegation of ineffectiveness is conclusory, and unsupported by either fact or legal authority.

Kurtz v. Clark

290 P.3d 779 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 16, 2012

Maldonado, 480 A.2d 779 , 784 (Del.1981). 12 Although a non-corporate defendant has standing to raise the business judgment rule as a defense, the demand requirement does not exist as a shield of immunity for defendants. … 97 , 111 S.Ct. 1711, 1716 , 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991) ("In our view, the function of the demand doctrine in delimiting the respective powers of the individual shareholder and of the directors to control corporate litigation clearly

Commercial Financial Services, Inc. v. Jones (In Re Commercial Financial Services, Inc.)

251 B.R. 397 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 21, 2000

This Court disagrees with the court’s conclusion in Concept Clubs. 10 First, the assertion of setoff, whether as a defense or as a counterclaim, clearly invokes the claims allowance process. … On October 1, 1999, the Court entered an Order Authorizing and Establishing Procedures for Discovery Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004, which established a Rule 2004 discovery plan including timetables and pro *413 cedures