Case law

Marusak v. Dowling

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2022

“To qualify as an ‘adequate’ procedural ground, a state rule must be ‘firmly established and regularly followed.’” Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 316 (2011) (quoting Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53, 60-61 (2009)). … Under clearly established federal law announced in Cuyler v.

Hast v. Territory

5 Okla. Crim. 162 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 7, 1911

The state should be required to establish the required chaste and virtuous character. … Of course, no one should be convicted upon suspicion; but where a defendant has been found guilty of this infamous and detestable offense, after having had a fair' and impartial trial, and the evidence clearly shows his guilt

Truesdell v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

960 F. Supp. 1511 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 8, 1997

The Hess ease is of particular significance because it is a recent ease specifically noting the “substantial line of authorities” establishing the validity of replacement cost clauses similar or identical to the clause at … Truesdell is not qualified to give an opinion regarding the quality of different types of wood siding.

Burrows v. Burrows

886 P.2d 984 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 29, 1994

defending the father's motion for summary judgment, the mother asserted that only two of the forty acres the father conveyed to his parents were utilized as a homestead while the remaining thirty-eight acres should not qualify … not require that a person have a family in order to claim an exemption, we do not believe this amendment was intended to allow the homestead exemption to be used to defeat support alimony and child support when such a use clearly

Ealey v. Hiniger

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 21, 2020

The complaint must clearly state what each individual defendant did to violate the plaintiff’s civil rights. See Bennett v. … Further, “a 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.

JOHNSON v. BROWN

2024 OK CIV APP 18 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 27, 2024

The Stock Restriction Agreement, adopted in December of 1990, clearly states that the shareholders only included the Original Shareholders. … For example, in In re Osteopathic Hospital Association of Delaware 195 A.2d 759, 762 (Del. 1963), the Court explained that Delaware "courts have long held that bylaws may be amended or established by custom or by acquiescence

LaFevers v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 2160 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 21, 1995

LaFevers’ pretrial motion challenging “death qualifying” questions was overruled. … Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 393 , 84 S.Ct. 1774, 1790, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) (established a defendant's right to an in camera hearing on the voluntariness of his confession). .

Large Oil Co. v. Howard

63 Okla. 143 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 27, 1917

Further, it was said that the court did not feel warranted in extending the exemption established by the case of McCullough v. … It is sufficient to say that, upon thorough consideration of the statute here involved, we are clearly of the opinion that it imposes neither an occupation nor license tax. In Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v.

GWACS Armory, LLC v. KE Arms, LLC

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 23, 2023

For the same reasons, GWACS has not established that Phagan misappropriated a trade secret. … Litigation Privilege Oklahoma recognizes a litigation privilege “under which attorneys, parties, jurors, and witnesses are immune from defamation liability for statements

Washington v. State

70 O.B.A.J. 1578 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 7, 1999

The question of whether or not a lay witness is qualified to render an opinion is' a preliminary determination within the sound discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous or … Such argument is clearly improper. Id. See also Brown v.

Hanson v. State

74 O.B.A.J. 1845 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 11, 2003

I cannot agree error exists in the failure to hold a Daubert/Kumho hearing, where Appellant failed to establish the relevancy of his proffered witness's testimony to the Court. ¶ 5 Additionally, I disagree with the Opinion's … State, 1995 OK CR 33 , 898 P.2d 1287, 1300 (reversal required where trial court failed to allow life-qualifying questions). See also Wackerly v.

Fortelney v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston

790 F. Supp. 2d 1322 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 16, 2011

By letter dated November 16, 2005, Liberty informed Fortelney that he qualified for LTD benefits. … In a letter dated July 9, 2008, Liberty informed Carter that he qualified for LTD benefits.

Short v. State

70 O.B.A.J. 1223 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 14, 1999

The trial court’s decision on the issue of discriminatory intent will not be overturned unless we are convinced that the determination is clearly erroneous. … Bayless’s testimony does not qualify as surrebuttal evidence.

United States v. Hardage

750 F. Supp. 1444 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 16, 1990

The language of this section “clearly defines the scope of intended liability under the statute and the elements of proof necessary to establish it.” Monsanto, 858 F.2d at 167 . … Establishment of Site-Specific Elements As discussed previously in this Order, the Court noted that in order to establish liability under section 107(a) of CERCLA the United States must first establish the following elements

Geyman v. State

86 Okla. Crim. 348 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 10, 1948

There must be some evidence in addition thereto from which it may be clearly inferable that the neglect to turn over the funds was either in contemplation of a misappropriation or the consequence of the misappropriation. … Geyman, was the duly elected, qualified and acting city clerk of the city of Geary during the time alleged in the information; “2.

Federal Home Loan Bank Board v. Empie

628 F. Supp. 223 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 25, 1983

If the cause of action, which the declaratory defendant threatens to assert, does not itself involve a claim under federal law, it is doubtful if a federal court may entertain an action for a declaratory judgment establishing … This Court does not find that “compelling circumstances” exist “indicating that the state court is much more qualified to hear the case.” Composite State Bd. of Med. Examiners, supra, at page 136.

Jenkins v. Nunn

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

First, because the OCCA identified Jackson as the clearly established federal law governing Jenkins’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims, Jenkins has not shown that the OCCA’s rejection of those claims is contrary to clearly … application of, clearly established federal law, as required to overcome § 2254(d)(1).

WOOD v. MERCEDES-BENZ OF OKLAHOMA CITY

2014 OK 68 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 16, 2014

This has been the common law approach ever since landlord's sovereignty and immunity for acts done within the boundaries of his land gradually gave away to present-day civil accountability. … Melvin Simon & Assoc., Inc. , 1994 OK 68, ¶6 , 876 P.2d 239 ("It is well established that a landowner has no duty to warn of dangers that are open and obvious."); Turner v.

State Ex Rel. Henry v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

825 P.2d 1305 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 2, 1992

The rates charged by SWB during the period in question (January 1, 1987 to September 30,1989) clearly were authorized by the Commission. … Moreover, the extra-record “facts” described by the testimony as supportive of the depreciation reserve deficiency finding would not necessarily qualify as “generally recognized technical facts.” IX.

IN THE MATTER OF K. H.

2021 OK 33 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 8, 2021

Instruction No. 8 clearly states it is "OUJI Juv-2.2." … s bruises qualify as a "serious bodily injury" and therefore "heinous and shocking" physical abuse.