Case law

Wells v. Samsung Electronics America Inc

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 22, 2020

The Settlement Administrator also established a toll-free number. Id. … This Settlement Agreement builds on the structure established by the voluntary recall.

Larry Allen v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 22, 2020

The Settlement Administrator also established a toll-free number. Id. … This Settlement Agreement builds on the structure established by the voluntary recall.

Raabe v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 22, 2020

The Settlement Administrator also established a toll-free number. Id. … This Settlement Agreement builds on the structure established by the voluntary recall.

Kellas v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 22, 2020

The Settlement Administrator also established a toll-free number. Id. … This Settlement Agreement builds on the structure established by the voluntary recall.

ORENSTEIN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 22, 2020

The Settlement Administrator also established a toll-free number. Id. … This Settlement Agreement builds on the structure established by the voluntary recall.

Hinkhouse v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 22, 2020

The Settlement Administrator also established a toll-free number. Id. … This Settlement Agreement builds on the structure established by the voluntary recall.

Zamora v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 22, 2020

The Settlement Administrator also established a toll-free number. Id. … This Settlement Agreement builds on the structure established by the voluntary recall.

Evans v. UnitedHealthcare of Oklahoma Inc.

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 2, 2022

If [Mercy Hospital’s] request qualifies for an appeal, grievance, or complaint, [UHC] will complete [its] review and send [Mercy Hospital] a letter about [its] decision[.]” Dkt. # 49-1, at 263. … Moreover, plaintiff’s February 23, 2018 EOB statement (Dkt. # 49-1, at 245-48) clearly shows that UHC paid Dr.

Reynolds v. State Election Board

233 F. Supp. 323 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 19, 1964

After adoption of this amendment, qualified electors brought an action, No. 64-255 Civil, Reynolds et al. v. … Our duty is to reapportion the Oklahoma Legislature in accordance with the established law of the land.

T.D. Williamson, Inc. v. Lincoln Electric Automation

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 30, 2025

Variance outside the range of that qualified in any process development activity may cause degradation in weld quality. … This website link is located above the signature line, clearly referenced, and was not hidden in the contract.

United States of America v. Genentech, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 14, 2024

The court “must determine whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts supporting all the elements necessary to establish an entitlement to relief under the legal theory proposed.” Lane v. … Thus, although the Relators clearly refer to the BLA, the court is not satisfied that they quote from the BLA. pursuant to Genentech’s instructions did not, in fact, yield 20.952 (or 21) mg/mL of liquid solution.

United States v. Osage Wind, LLC

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 20, 2023

The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that a qualified expert may provide testimony that “will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). … whether a knowledgeable and experienced wind developer would have reasonably anticipated that a lease from the mineral owner would be required prior to construction of the project” and (2) “if a wind energy developer was clearly

Davis v. Core Civic, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2021

Furthermore, to be entitled to injunctive relief, the movant must establish a violation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 377 (1976). … Because the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to establish that his constitutional rights have been violated, his requests injunctive relief cannot be granted.