employer defense in Oklahoma

27 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1937–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Bayless v. Industrial Com'n of Arizonagreen arizctapp · 1993 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017STANDARD OF REVIEW Whether the doctrine of claim preclusion prevents appellants from re-litigating their state claims is usually a mixed question of law and fact. "[A] deferential standard of review applies to resolutions of disputed facts when supported by reasonable evidence; an independent judgment standard of review applies to the ultimate conclusion that these facts do or do not trigger preclusion." AJ Bayless v. Industrial Commission of Arizona , 179 Ariz. 434, 880 P.2d 654, 659 (App.1993). 2017STANDARD OF REVIEW Whether the doctrine of claim preclusion prevents appellants from re-litigating their state claims is usually a mixed question of law and fact. "[A] deferential standard of review applies to resolutions of disputed facts when supported by reasonable evidence; an independent judgment standard of review applies to the ultimate conclusion that these facts do or do not trigger preclusion." AJ Bayless v. Industrial Commission of Arizona , 179 Ariz. 434, 880 P.2d 654, 659 (App.1993).	2	2
Jordan v. Catesgreen okla · 1997 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018In contrast, punitive or exemplary damages may be assessed against an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior if an employee's conduct "would serve to justify an exemplary damages award against the employee as an individual tortfeasor." Thiry v. Armstrong World Inds. , 1983 OK 28 , Â¶ 9, 661 P.2d 515, 520 ; see also Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Servs., Inc. , 1997 OK 9 , 935 P.2d 289 . 2018In contrast, punitive or exemplary damages may be assessed against an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior if an employee's conduct "would serve to justify an exemplary damages award against the employee as an individual tortfeasor." Thiry v. Armstrong World Inds. , 1983 OK 28 , Â¶ 9, 661 P.2d 515, 520 ; see also Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Servs., Inc. , 1997 OK 9 , 935 P.2d 289 .	1	1
Lambertsen v. Utah Department of Correctionsgreen ca10 · 1996 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 1 sentence 2010Relating to the last factor, PeopLease claims it is undisputed "EFI retained complete control over [Plaintiff], including decisions to hire, assign work, discipline, and/or terminate her," while PeopLease "provided payroll administration and benefit services to EFI employees and staff." £59 PeopLease's sole authority for this argument is Lambertsen v. Utah Department of Corrections, 79 F.3d 1024, 1029 (10th Cir.1996), a summary judgment case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Cireuit affirmed the district court's decision the employer was not liable under the "hybrid test." Acknowledging	1	1
Bristol v. The Board Of County Commissioners Of The County Of Clear Creekgreen ca10 · 2002 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010Relating to the last factor, PeopLease claims it is undisputed "EFI retained complete control over [Plaintiff], including decisions to hire, assign work, discipline, and/or terminate her," while PeopLease "provided payroll administration and benefit services to EFI employees and staff." £59 PeopLease's sole authority for this argument is Lambertsen v. Utah Department of Corrections, 79 F.3d 1024, 1029 (10th Cir.1996), a summary judgment case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Cireuit affirmed the district court's decision the employer was not liable under the "hybrid test." Acknowledging 2010Relating to the last factor, PeopLease claims it is undisputed "EFI retained complete control over [Plaintiff], including decisions to hire, assign work, discipline, and/or terminate her," while PeopLease "provided payroll administration and benefit services to EFI employees and staff." £59 PeopLease's sole authority for this argument is Lambertsen v. Utah Department of Corrections, 79 F.3d 1024, 1029 (10th Cir.1996), a summary judgment case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Cireuit affirmed the district court's decision the employer was not liable under the "hybrid test." Acknowledging	1	1
Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc.green okla · 2008 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008"The implication of a sufficiently discernable public policy presents a question of law to be resolved either [by the trial court] or ultimately by an appellate court." Id. ¶ 9, 176 P.3d at 1210 (footnote omitted). [ 21 In her response to Employer's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff asserted that "[hlere the public policy is quite clear-notification, removal and prevention of mold in a public courthouse.	1	1
Lincoln Rock Corp. v. Voylesgreen okla · 1979 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (41)

Case	Cited	Years
Pitchford v. Jim Powell Dozer, Inc. green okla · 2000 2 sentences 2016Employer's brief states that "Claimant did not 'expressly ask. for Continued Medical Maintenance at the, November 23, 2013 hearing," 8 and Loyd specifically states in his. brief that the "trial court was not called upon in the [November] 2018 hearing to address [his] need for continuing medical maintenance." 9 The court's order awarding permanent partial disability did not address continuing,. medical maintenance. - Although Loyd had the opportunity to appeal the order to. seek a correction or ruling on the issue, he did not appeal and the order became final. 111 In Pitchford v. Jim Powell Doz 2016Although Loyd had the opportunity to appeal the order to seek a correction or ruling on the issue, he did not appeal and the order became final. ¶11 In Pitchford v. Jim Powell Dozer, Inc. , 2000 OK 12 , 996 P.2d 935 , the claimant was injured on the job and received an award of permanent partial disability benefits.	2	2016–2016
Thiry v. Armstrong World Industries green okla · 1983 2 sentences 2018In contrast, punitive or exemplary damages may be assessed against an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior if an employee's conduct "would serve to justify an exemplary damages award against the employee as an individual tortfeasor." Thiry v. Armstrong World Inds. , 1983 OK 28 , Â¶ 9, 661 P.2d 515, 520 ; see also Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Servs., Inc. , 1997 OK 9 , 935 P.2d 289 . 2018In contrast, punitive or exemplary damages may be assessed against an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior if an employee's conduct "would serve to justify an exemplary damages award against the employee as an individual tortfeasor." Thiry v. Armstrong World Inds. , 1983 OK 28 , Â¶ 9, 661 P.2d 515, 520 ; see also Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Servs., Inc. , 1997 OK 9 , 935 P.2d 289 .	1	2018–2018
Kennedy v. BUILDERS WAREHOUSE, INC. green oklacivapp · 2009 2 sentences 2014Kennedy v. Builders Warehouse, Inc., 2009 OK CIV APP 32, ¶ 14 , 208 P.3d 474, 477 . 2014Kennedy v. Builders Warehouse, Inc., 2009 OK CIV APP 32, ¶ 14 , 208 P.3d 474, 477 .	1	2014–2014
Miner v. Mid-America Door Co. green oklacivapp · 2002 2 sentences 2010Miner v. Mid-America Door Co., 2003 OK CIV APP 32 , 68 P.3d 212 . 158 PeopLease argues it and EFI should not be considered as one employer, because there is no evidentiary support for the following factors of the single employer test: (1) interrelated operations, (2) common ownership, (8) common management, and (4) centralized control over labor relations. 2010Miner v. Mid-America Door Co., 2003 OK CIV APP 32 , 68 P.3d 212 . 158 PeopLease argues it and EFI should not be considered as one employer, because there is no evidentiary support for the following factors of the single employer test: (1) interrelated operations, (2) common ownership, (8) common management, and (4) centralized control over labor relations.	1	2010–2010
Lowery v. Echostar Satellite Corp. green okla · 2007 2 sentences 2009Lowery, 2007 OK 38, ¶ 11 , 160 P.3d at 963-964 . 2009Lowery, 2007 OK 38, ¶ 11 , 160 P.3d at 963-964 .	1	2009–2009
Smith v. Teel green oklacivapp · 2007 2 sentences 2009T13 In the present case, the trial court held that, because "Plaintiff did not respond to [Employer's] Motion for Summary Judgment with evidentiary support denying [Employer's] Statement of Undisputed Facts, ..., [Employer's] Motion for Summary Judgment should be sustained." However, in opposition to Employer's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff tendered a verified response denying material parts of Employer's statement of uncontroverted facts, attested that "all statements contained [in his response] are true and correct according to my best information and belief," and the verification s 2009T13 In the present case, the trial court held that, because "Plaintiff did not respond to [Employer's] Motion for Summary Judgment with evidentiary support denying [Employer's] Statement of Undisputed Facts, ..., [Employer's] Motion for Summary Judgment should be sustained." However, in opposition to Employer's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff tendered a verified response denying material parts of Employer's statement of uncontroverted facts, attested that "all statements contained [in his response] are true and correct according to my best information and belief," and the verification s	1	2009–2009
Folsom Auto Supply v. Bristow green okla · 1954 2 sentences 2006The court ruled the estoppel act goes only to the question of hazardousness, and the nature of claimant's work was clearly hazardous and not in dispute, (citing Folsom Auto Supply v. Bristow, 1954 OK 254, ¶ 16 , 275 P.2d 706, 711 ) We note that although the body of the opinion does not address whether the claimant’s wages were considered in setting compensation premiums, the court’s syllabus provides "[t]he effect of the 'Estoppel Act, ... is to prohibit interposition by an employer of the defense that the employment of a claimant was nonhazardous if the remuneration paid claimant is scheduled 2006The court ruled the estoppel act goes only to the question of hazardousness, and the nature of claimant's work was clearly hazardous and not in dispute, (citing Folsom Auto Supply v. Bristow, 1954 OK 254, ¶ 16 , 275 P.2d 706, 711 ) We note that although the body of the opinion does not address whether the claimant’s wages were considered in setting compensation premiums, the court’s syllabus provides "[t]he effect of the 'Estoppel Act, ... is to prohibit interposition by an employer of the defense that the employment of a claimant was nonhazardous if the remuneration paid claimant is scheduled	1	2006–2006
Wald v. Roto Rooter neutral oklacivapp · 1995 1 sentence 2006STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 7 To prove he or she has sustained a change of condition for the worse, a claimant must show “(1) that a change of condition for the worse has occurred since [the] last prior order, and (2) that the change of condition is due to the original injury.” Wald v. Roto Rooter, 1995 OK CIV APP 122 , ¶ 5, 910 P.2d 354, 356 .	1	2006–2006
Brown v. Mom's Kitchen, LLC neutral oklacivapp · 2004 1 sentence 2005Id. ¶ 13 Employer’s brief itself quotes Claimant’s testimony at the December 2004 trial in which she stated, in response to counsel’s question on cross-examination: Q.	1	2005–2005
Owings v. Pool Well Service green okla · 1992 2 sentences 2003Owings v. Pool Well Serv., 1992 OK 159 , 843 P.2d 380 . 2003Owings v. Pool Well Serv., 1992 OK 159 , 843 P.2d 380 .	1	2003–2003
Samedan Oil Corp. v. Corporation Commission green okla · 1988 2 sentences 2002Samedan Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission of State of Oklahoma, 1988 OK 56 , 755 P.2d 664 . 2002Samedan Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission of State of Oklahoma, 1988 OK 56 , 755 P.2d 664 .	1	2002–2002
K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, INC. green okla · 2000 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla. 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla.	1	2001–2001
Tapley v. Patton green okla · 1960 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla. 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla.	1	2001–2001
Wat Henry Pontiac, Inc. v. Pitcock green okla · 1956 2 sentences 2001There the court held, when considering a case premised upon an accountant's negligence, that "[n]egligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant's failure to perform his contract and to report the truth." 256 A.D. at 236 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 . [9] See 23 O.S.1991 § 13, which provides in pertinent part: "In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, unless any negligence 2001There the court held, when considering a case premised upon an accountant's negligence, that "[n]egligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant's failure to perform his contract and to report the truth." 256 A.D. at 236 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 . [9] See 23 O.S.1991 § 13, which provides in pertinent part: "In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, unless any negligence	1	2001–2001
Florafax International Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc. green okla · 1997 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla. 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla.	1	2001–2001
Holley v. Shepard green okla · 1987 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla. 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla.	1	2001–2001
DeCorte v. Robinson green okla · 1998 2 sentences 2001There the court held, when considering a case premised upon an accountant's negligence, that "[n]egligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant's failure to perform his contract and to report the truth." 256 A.D. at 236 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 . [9] See 23 O.S.1991 § 13, which provides in pertinent part: "In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, unless any negligence 2001There the court held, when considering a case premised upon an accountant's negligence, that "[n]egligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant's failure to perform his contract and to report the truth." 256 A.D. at 236 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 . [9] See 23 O.S.1991 § 13, which provides in pertinent part: "In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, unless any negligence	1	2001–2001
Lawton Refining Co. v. Hollister green okla · 1922 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla. 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla.	1	2001–2001
National Surety Corp. v. Lybrand green nyappdiv · 1939 2 sentences 2001There the court held, when considering a case premised upon an accountant's negligence, that "[n]egligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant's failure to perform his contract and to report the truth." 256 A.D. at 236 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 . [9] See 23 O.S.1991 § 13, which provides in pertinent part: "In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, unless any negligence 2001There the court held, when considering a case premised upon an accountant's negligence, that "[n]egligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant's failure to perform his contract and to report the truth." 256 A.D. at 236 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 . [9] See 23 O.S.1991 § 13, which provides in pertinent part: "In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, unless any negligence	1	2001–2001
Hames v. Anderson green okla · 1977 2 sentences 2001There the court held, when considering a case premised upon an accountant's negligence, that "[n]egligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant's failure to perform his contract and to report the truth." 256 A.D. at 236 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 . [9] See 23 O.S.1991 § 13, which provides in pertinent part: "In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, unless any negligence 2001There the court held, when considering a case premised upon an accountant's negligence, that "[n]egligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant's failure to perform his contract and to report the truth." 256 A.D. at 236 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 . [9] See 23 O.S.1991 § 13, which provides in pertinent part: "In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, unless any negligence	1	2001–2001
Rivas v. Parkland Manor green okla · 2000 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla. 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla.	1	2001–2001
Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. green okla · 1954 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla. 2001Co. v. Hollister, 1922 OK 19 , 86 Okla. 13 , 205 P. 506 syl.no. 2. [12] Tapley v. Patton, 1960 OK 23 , 349 P.2d 507, 508 . [13] Holley v. Shepard, 1987 OK 92 , 744 P.2d 945, 947 . [14] Florafax Intl., Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3 , 933 P.2d 282, 287 . [15] K & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31, ¶ 7 , 3 P.3d 705 ; Keith v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 1954 OK 196 , 272 P.2d 371 syl. 2. [16] Rivas v. Parkland Manor, 2000 OK 68, ¶ 6 , 12 P.3d 452, 455 ; Barnes v. Okla.	1	2001–2001
Whitman v. Whitman green okla · 1967 2 sentences 2000Therefore, the only indication in the record of the trial court’s bases for its separate orders dismissing Wife’s claim against Employer and granting Estate’s summary judgment order is found in those orders — respectively, Wife “must first present her claim in the probate proceeding,” and “[Estate’s] summary judgment is sustained and this case is dismissed, but all without prejudice to [Wife] making her creditor’s claim in the probate case.” Considering the language of each order, we must conclude the trial court made no decision on the issues of an “equitable lien” and the “post-death surviva 2000Therefore, the only indication in the record of the trial court’s bases for its separate orders dismissing Wife’s claim against Employer and granting Estate’s summary judgment order is found in those orders — respectively, Wife “must first present her claim in the probate proceeding,” and “[Estate’s] summary judgment is sustained and this case is dismissed, but all without prejudice to [Wife] making her creditor’s claim in the probate case.” Considering the language of each order, we must conclude the trial court made no decision on the issues of an “equitable lien” and the “post-death surviva	1	2000–2000
May v. May green okla · 1979 2 sentences 2000Therefore, the only indication in the record of the trial court’s bases for its separate orders dismissing Wife’s claim against Employer and granting Estate’s summary judgment order is found in those orders — respectively, Wife “must first present her claim in the probate proceeding,” and “[Estate’s] summary judgment is sustained and this case is dismissed, but all without prejudice to [Wife] making her creditor’s claim in the probate case.” Considering the language of each order, we must conclude the trial court made no decision on the issues of an “equitable lien” and the “post-death surviva 2000Therefore, the only indication in the record of the trial court’s bases for its separate orders dismissing Wife’s claim against Employer and granting Estate’s summary judgment order is found in those orders — respectively, Wife “must first present her claim in the probate proceeding,” and “[Estate’s] summary judgment is sustained and this case is dismissed, but all without prejudice to [Wife] making her creditor’s claim in the probate case.” Considering the language of each order, we must conclude the trial court made no decision on the issues of an “equitable lien” and the “post-death surviva	1	2000–2000
First Community Bank of Blanchard v. Hodges green okla · 1995 2 sentences 2000Therefore, the only indication in the record of the trial court’s bases for its separate orders dismissing Wife’s claim against Employer and granting Estate’s summary judgment order is found in those orders — respectively, Wife “must first present her claim in the probate proceeding,” and “[Estate’s] summary judgment is sustained and this case is dismissed, but all without prejudice to [Wife] making her creditor’s claim in the probate case.” Considering the language of each order, we must conclude the trial court made no decision on the issues of an “equitable lien” and the “post-death surviva 2000Therefore, the only indication in the record of the trial court’s bases for its separate orders dismissing Wife’s claim against Employer and granting Estate’s summary judgment order is found in those orders — respectively, Wife “must first present her claim in the probate proceeding,” and “[Estate’s] summary judgment is sustained and this case is dismissed, but all without prejudice to [Wife] making her creditor’s claim in the probate case.” Considering the language of each order, we must conclude the trial court made no decision on the issues of an “equitable lien” and the “post-death surviva	1	2000–2000
Richey v. Commander Mills, Inc. green okla · 1974	1	1999–1999
Parks v. Norman Municipal Hospital green okla · 1984	1	1999–1999
Hix v. White Swan Food Services green okla · 1996	1	1998–1998
Harter Concrete Products, Inc. v. Harris green okla · 1979	1	1992–1992
Snyder v. Smith Welding & Fabrication green okla · 1987	1	1991–1991
Greene v. Circle Insurance Company green okla · 1976	1	1989–1989
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Overton green okla · 1971	1	1975–1975
Cherry v. Eagle-Picher Company neutral okla · 1962	1	1963–1963
Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. Coley green okla · 1962	1	1963–1963
Doremus v. Root green wash · 1901	1	1962–1962
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Reinhart green okla · 1916	1	1962–1962
Skelton Lead & Zinc Co. v. State Industrial Commission green · 1924	1	1944–1944
Reams v. Malcolm neutral okla · 1942	1	1944–1944
Glasgow v. State Industrial Commission neutral okla · 1926	1	1944–1944
First National Bank v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. green kan · 1927	1	1937–1937

Where else courts name it

PA 134 (1937–2025) CA 108 (1915–2026) NY 58 (1907–2025) MO 57 (1947–2024) IL 56 (1908–2024) OH 46 (1969–2025) IN 42 (1970–2020) TN 41 (1928–2026) LA 39 (1931–2020) FL 38 (1943–2026) CT 38 (1946–2025) OK 27 (1937–2018) WA 25 (1957–2025) MD 22 (1963–2023) NJ 21 (1954–2026) NC 19 (1923–2019) MI 17 (1907–2025) TX 17 (1915–2023) GA 15 (1938–2017) CO 14 (1942–2026) KY 13 (1912–2023) AL 12 (1890–2026) OR 12 (1913–2007) VA 12 (1975–2026) AZ 12 (1934–2026) NM 12 (1976–2023) ME 10 (1947–2024) MN 10 (1956–2007) MT 9 (1985–2020) WI 9 (1948–2008) WV 9 (2004–2025) AR 9 (1969–2021) RI 9 (1926–2004) IA 8 (1940–2017) MA 8 (1988–2021) DE 6 (1925–2017) NE 6 (1916–2022) ID 5 (1966–2013) UT 5 (1992–2015) SC 5 (1943–2016) KS 5 (1926–2005) MS 4 (1962–2017) ND 4 (1978–2004) WY 3 (1977–1991) NH 3 (1986–2000) AK 3 (1972–2020) VI 2 (2007–2009) SD 2 (1999–2006) HI 2 (1995–2010) DC 2 (1985–1987) VT 2 (2004–2020) NV 2 (2019–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check