discussion principle in Oklahoma

2009As we have explained herein, facts may be presented to a District Court for adjudication of a challenge to in personam jurisdiction by special appearance without waiving that challenge. [33] Appendix to Respondent's Verified Response to Petitioner's Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction, etc, No. 106,432, Nov. 10, 2008, Exhibit 3. [34] Appendix to Respondent's Verified Response to Petitioner's Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction, etc, No. 106,432, Nov. 10, 2008, Exhibit 4. [35] Appendix to Petitioner's Brief in Support of Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction, etc., No. 106

2009As we have explained herein, facts may be presented to a District Court for adjudication of a challenge to in personam jurisdiction by special appearance without waiving that challenge. [33] Appendix to Respondent's Verified Response to Petitioner's Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction, etc, No. 106,432, Nov. 10, 2008, Exhibit 3. [34] Appendix to Respondent's Verified Response to Petitioner's Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction, etc, No. 106,432, Nov. 10, 2008, Exhibit 4. [35] Appendix to Petitioner's Brief in Support of Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction, etc., No. 106

2006Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 258-264 (8th ed.1927), (citations to various states, including a quote from City of Sapulpa v. Land, 1924 OK 92 , 223 P. 640 , 35 A.L.R. 872 stating that a general law need not operate on every locality of the state). [12] We defined a local law as one "which in its subject relates but to a portion of the people of the state or their property; and may not, either in its subject, operation or immediate and necessary results, effect the people of the state, or their property in general." Territory of Oklahoma v. School District No. 83, 1901 OK 22, ¶ 5 , 64 P.

2006Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 258-264 (8th ed.1927), (citations to various states, including a quote from City of Sapulpa v. Land, 1924 OK 92 , 223 P. 640 , 35 A.L.R. 872 stating that a general law need not operate on every locality of the state). [12] We defined a local law as one "which in its subject relates but to a portion of the people of the state or their property; and may not, either in its subject, operation or immediate and necessary results, effect the people of the state, or their property in general." Territory of Oklahoma v. School District No. 83, 1901 OK 22, ¶ 5 , 64 P.

2006Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 258-264 (8th ed.1927), (citations to various states, including a quote from City of Sapulpa v. Land, 1924 OK 92 , 223 P. 640 , 35 A.L.R. 872 stating that a general law need not operate on every locality of the state). [12] We defined a local law as one "which in its subject relates but to a portion of the people of the state or their property; and may not, either in its subject, operation or immediate and necessary results, effect the people of the state, or their property in general." Territory of Oklahoma v. School District No. 83, 1901 OK 22, ¶ 5 , 64 P.

2006Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 258-264 (8th ed.1927), (citations to various states, including a quote from City of Sapulpa v. Land, 1924 OK 92 , 223 P. 640 , 35 A.L.R. 872 stating that a general law need not operate on every locality of the state). [12] We defined a local law as one "which in its subject relates but to a portion of the people of the state or their property; and may not, either in its subject, operation or immediate and necessary results, effect the people of the state, or their property in general." Territory of Oklahoma v. School District No. 83, 1901 OK 22, ¶ 5 , 64 P.

1996For a discussion of these factors when used in evaluating the imposition of sanctions, see Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle, 847 F.2d 90 , 95 (3d Cir.1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 Advisory Committee note (1983); Matthews v. Freedman, 128 F.R.D. 194, 197-98 (E.D.Pa.1989). 11 .

1996For a discussion of the neutrality-and-detachment requirements that apply to professional board membership, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 , 93 S.Ct. 1689 , 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973). [2] For a discussion of this standard of proof, see infra note 14. [3] For many years the term "burden of proof" was ambiguous, because it was used to describe two distinct concepts.

1996For a discussion of the neutrality-and-detachment requirements that apply to professional board membership, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 , 93 S.Ct. 1689 , 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973). [2] For a discussion of this standard of proof, see infra note 14. [3] For many years the term "burden of proof" was ambiguous, because it was used to describe two distinct concepts.

1994The Michigan Supreme Court examined the textual differences between their constitution and the United States Constitution in People v. Bullock, 440 Mich. 15 , 485 N.W.2d 866 (1992), and the Michigan court’s discussion and analysis in Bullock is instructive.

1994The Michigan Supreme Court examined the textual differences between their constitution and the United States Constitution in People v. Bullock, 440 Mich. 15 , 485 N.W.2d 866 (1992), and the Michigan court’s discussion and analysis in Bullock is instructive.

1967There the court, to support what appears to be a change of opinion, cited with approval Heller v. Dailey, 28 Ind.App. 555 , 63 N.E. 490 , as follows: “The right to take minerals (oil and gas) from the land constitutes an interest in the land.” The court then determined that the measure of damages for breach of a covenant of an oil and gas léase, was fixed by the statutory provision for “ * * * breach * * * in a grant of an estate in real property, * 23 O.S.1961, § 25, and accepted the definition of an estate contained in Bouvier’s law dictionary, as follows: “The degree, quantity, nature and e

1967There the court, to support what appears to be a change of opinion, cited with approval Heller v. Dailey, 28 Ind.App. 555 , 63 N.E. 490 , as follows: “The right to take minerals (oil and gas) from the land constitutes an interest in the land.” The court then determined that the measure of damages for breach of a covenant of an oil and gas léase, was fixed by the statutory provision for “ * * * breach * * * in a grant of an estate in real property, * 23 O.S.1961, § 25, and accepted the definition of an estate contained in Bouvier’s law dictionary, as follows: “The degree, quantity, nature and e

1965For a discussion of this rule, see Nunnery v. Beatrice Foods Company, Okl., 340 P.2d 236 .

1960For a discussion of the principle, see Rhine v. State, Okl.Cr., 336 P.2d 913 .

1948For a discussion of this principle, see quotation in the opinion from Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 , 57 L.Ed. 820 , Ann.

1948For a discussion of this principle, see quotation in the opinion from Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 , 33 S.Ct. 449 , 57 L.Ed. 820 , Ann.

1948Cas. 1913E, 710.” To the same effect see State ex rel. v. Stanfield, 11 Okla.

1941They cite Micco v. Huser, 185 Okla. 394 , 91 P. 2d 1069 , and other Oklahoma cases relating to guardianship matters in the county courts.

1941They cite Micco v. Huser, 185 Okla. 394 , 91 P. 2d 1069 , and other Oklahoma cases relating to guardianship matters in the county courts.

1938The finding of that body on such a *463 question will not tie disturbed in. this court if supported by any competent evidence.” For a discussion of the rule relative to liability where there is a recurrence of the original injury, see New York Indemnity Co. v. Miller, 163 Okla. 283 , 22 P.2d 107 ; Deep Rock Oil Corp. v. Betchan, 169 Okla. 42 , 35 P.2d 905 , 102 A. L.

1938The finding of that body on such a *463 question will not tie disturbed in. this court if supported by any competent evidence.” For a discussion of the rule relative to liability where there is a recurrence of the original injury, see New York Indemnity Co. v. Miller, 163 Okla. 283 , 22 P.2d 107 ; Deep Rock Oil Corp. v. Betchan, 169 Okla. 42 , 35 P.2d 905 , 102 A. L.

1938The finding of that body on such a *463 question will not tie disturbed in. this court if supported by any competent evidence.” For a discussion of the rule relative to liability where there is a recurrence of the original injury, see New York Indemnity Co. v. Miller, 163 Okla. 283 , 22 P.2d 107 ; Deep Rock Oil Corp. v. Betchan, 169 Okla. 42 , 35 P.2d 905 , 102 A. L.

1938The finding of that body on such a *463 question will not tie disturbed in. this court if supported by any competent evidence.” For a discussion of the rule relative to liability where there is a recurrence of the original injury, see New York Indemnity Co. v. Miller, 163 Okla. 283 , 22 P.2d 107 ; Deep Rock Oil Corp. v. Betchan, 169 Okla. 42 , 35 P.2d 905 , 102 A. L.

1932We are referred to two cases that have been decided by this court, one of them being United States National Life & Casualty Co. v. Heard, 148 Okla. 274 , 298 P. 619 , opinion being filed April 28, 1931, in. which there is a discussion of waiver by conduct of the beneficiary and as to whether or not a waiver with reference to one doctor is a waiver as to others.

1932We are referred to two cases that have been decided by this court, one of them being United States National Life & Casualty Co. v. Heard, 148 Okla. 274 , 298 P. 619 , opinion being filed April 28, 1931, in. which there is a discussion of waiver by conduct of the beneficiary and as to whether or not a waiver with reference to one doctor is a waiver as to others.