21 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1909–2022 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shanbour v. Hollingsworthgreen2 sentences2022ANALYSIS ¶7 In the GTCA the State adopted sovereign immunity from liability for torts but also waived that immunity for certain torts committed by the State of Oklahoma and its political subdivisions. 51 O.S.2021 §152.1. "[C]ompliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in §§ 156 and 157 are prerequisites to the state's consent to be sued and to the exercise of judicial power to remedy the alleged tortious wrong by the government." Shanbour v. Hollingsworth , 1996 OK 67, ¶7 , 918 P.2d 73 , citing Cruse v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Atoka County , 1995 OK 143 , 910 P.2 2022ANALYSIS ¶7 In the GTCA the State adopted sovereign immunity from liability for torts but also waived that immunity for certain torts committed by the State of Oklahoma and its political subdivisions. 51 O.S.2021 §152.1. "[C]ompliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in §§ 156 and 157 are prerequisites to the state's consent to be sued and to the exercise of judicial power to remedy the alleged tortious wrong by the government." Shanbour v. Hollingsworth , 1996 OK 67, ¶7 , 918 P.2d 73 , citing Cruse v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Atoka County , 1995 OK 143 , 910 P.2 | 4 | 11 |
Reirdon v. Wilburton Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2017Watkins v. Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital, 2016 OK 71, ¶ 22 , 377 P.3d 124, 130 , citing Reirdon v. Wilburton Bd. of Education, 1980 OK 67 ¶ 4 , 611 P.2d 239, 240 . 18 . 51 O.S, 2011 156 (E) (material omitted and emphasis added): The written notice of claim to ... a political subdivision shall state Ae date, time, place and circumstances of the claim, the identity of Ae state agency or agencies involved, Ae amount of compensation or other relief demanded, the name, address and telephone number of Ae claimant, Ae name, address and telephone number of any agent authorized to settle Ae c 2017Watkins v. Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital, 2016 OK 71, ¶ 22 , 377 P.3d 124, 130 , citing Reirdon v. Wilburton Bd. of Education, 1980 OK 67 ¶ 4 , 611 P.2d 239, 240 . 18 . 51 O.S, 2011 156 (E) (material omitted and emphasis added): The written notice of claim to ... a political subdivision shall state Ae date, time, place and circumstances of the claim, the identity of Ae state agency or agencies involved, Ae amount of compensation or other relief demanded, the name, address and telephone number of Ae claimant, Ae name, address and telephone number of any agent authorized to settle Ae c | 2 | 3 |
Mindy Taragan v. Eli Lilly and Company, Inc.green2 sentences2017The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion." 17 Meriwether v. Coughlin , 879 F.2d 1037, 1042 (2d Cir.1989) ("Because the oral motion was made in open court, Rule 7(b) applies and written support was not necessary."); Targan v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 267 U.S.App.D.C. 387 , 838 F.2d 1337, 1340-1341 (D.C.Cir.1988) (one purpose of Federal Rule 7(b) (1) is to create a clear history of a litigation for the parties, later litigants, and reviewing courts); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1193, at 40-41 (1969) ( 2017The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion." 17 Meriwether v. Coughlin , 879 F.2d 1037, 1042 (2d Cir.1989) ("Because the oral motion was made in open court, Rule 7(b) applies and written support was not necessary."); Targan v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 267 U.S.App.D.C. 387 , 838 F.2d 1337, 1340-1341 (D.C.Cir.1988) (one purpose of Federal Rule 7(b) (1) is to create a clear history of a litigation for the parties, later litigants, and reviewing courts); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1193, at 40-41 (1969) ( | 2 | 2 |
Meriwether v. Coughlingreen2 sentences2017The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion." 17 Meriwether v. Coughlin , 879 F.2d 1037, 1042 (2d Cir.1989) ("Because the oral motion was made in open court, Rule 7(b) applies and written support was not necessary."); Targan v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 267 U.S.App.D.C. 387 , 838 F.2d 1337, 1340-1341 (D.C.Cir.1988) (one purpose of Federal Rule 7(b) (1) is to create a clear history of a litigation for the parties, later litigants, and reviewing courts); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1193, at 40-41 (1969) ( 2017The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion." 17 Meriwether v. Coughlin , 879 F.2d 1037, 1042 (2d Cir.1989) ("Because the oral motion was made in open court, Rule 7(b) applies and written support was not necessary."); Targan v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 267 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 838 F.2d 1337, 1340-1341 (D.C.Cir.1988) (one purpose of Federal Rule 7(b) (1) is to create a clear history of a litigation for the parties, later litigants, and reviewing courts); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1193, at 40-41 (1969) (o | 2 | 2 |
WATKINS v. CENTRAL STATE GRIFFIN MEMORIAL HOSPITALgreen2 sentences2022ANALYSIS ¶7 In the GTCA the State adopted sovereign immunity from liability for torts but also waived that immunity for certain torts committed by the State of Oklahoma and its political subdivisions. 51 O.S.2021 §152.1. "[C]ompliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in §§ 156 and 157 are prerequisites to the state's consent to be sued and to the exercise of judicial power to remedy the alleged tortious wrong by the government." Shanbour v. Hollingsworth , 1996 OK 67, ¶7 , 918 P.2d 73 , citing Cruse v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Atoka County , 1995 OK 143 , 910 P.2 2022ANALYSIS ¶7 In the GTCA the State adopted sovereign immunity from liability for torts but also waived that immunity for certain torts committed by the State of Oklahoma and its political subdivisions. 51 O.S.2021 §152.1. "[C]ompliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in §§ 156 and 157 are prerequisites to the state's consent to be sued and to the exercise of judicial power to remedy the alleged tortious wrong by the government." Shanbour v. Hollingsworth , 1996 OK 67, ¶7 , 918 P.2d 73 , citing Cruse v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Atoka County , 1995 OK 143 , 910 P.2 | 1 | 3 |
Stonecipher v. District Court of Pittsburg Countygreen2 sentences2017Ct. of Pittsburg County , 1998 OK 122, ¶ 11 , 970 P.2d 182 ; Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsa , 1967 OK 41, ¶ 24 , 424 P.2d 69 . 19 Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 18 , 3 P.3d 154, 162 . 20 Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Association , 2016 OK 65, ¶ 25 , 374 P.3d 755, 765 . 2017Ct. of Pittsburg County , 1998 OK 122, ¶ 11 , 970 P.2d 182 ; Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsa , 1967 OK 41, ¶ 24 , 424 P.2d 69 . 19 Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 18 , 3 P.3d 154, 162 . 20 Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Association , 2016 OK 65, ¶ 25 , 374 P.3d 755, 765 . | 1 | 2 |
Towne v. Hubbardgreen2 sentences2017Ct. of Pittsburg County , 1998 OK 122, ¶ 11 , 970 P.2d 182 ; Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsa , 1967 OK 41, ¶ 24 , 424 P.2d 69 . 19 Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 18 , 3 P.3d 154, 162 . 20 Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Association , 2016 OK 65, ¶ 25 , 374 P.3d 755, 765 . 2017Ct. of Pittsburg County , 1998 OK 122, ¶ 11 , 970 P.2d 182 ; Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsa , 1967 OK 41, ¶ 24 , 424 P.2d 69 . 19 Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 18 , 3 P.3d 154, 162 . 20 Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Association , 2016 OK 65, ¶ 25 , 374 P.3d 755, 765 . | 1 | 2 |
Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Ass'ngreen2 sentences2017Ct. of Pittsburg County , 1998 OK 122, ¶ 11 , 970 P.2d 182 ; Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsa , 1967 OK 41, ¶ 24 , 424 P.2d 69 . 19 Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 18 , 3 P.3d 154, 162 . 20 Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Association , 2016 OK 65, ¶ 25 , 374 P.3d 755, 765 . 2017Ct. of Pittsburg County , 1998 OK 122, ¶ 11, 970 P.2d 182; Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsa , 1967 OK 41, ¶ 24, 424 P.2d 69. 19 Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 18, 3 P.3d 154, 162. 20 Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Association , 2016 OK 65, ¶ 25, 374 P.3d 755, 765. | 1 | 2 |
Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsagreen2 sentences2017Ct. of Pittsburg County , 1998 OK 122, ¶ 11 , 970 P.2d 182 ; Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsa , 1967 OK 41, ¶ 24 , 424 P.2d 69 . 19 Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 18 , 3 P.3d 154, 162 . 20 Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Association , 2016 OK 65, ¶ 25 , 374 P.3d 755, 765 . 2017Ct. of Pittsburg County , 1998 OK 122, ¶ 11 , 970 P.2d 182 ; Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsa , 1967 OK 41, ¶ 24 , 424 P.2d 69 . 19 Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 18 , 3 P.3d 154, 162 . 20 Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Association , 2016 OK 65, ¶ 25 , 374 P.3d 755, 765 . | 1 | 2 |
LEE v. BUENOgreen2 sentences2017The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion." 17 Meriwether v. Coughlin , 879 F.2d 1037, 1042 (2d Cir.1989) ("Because the oral motion was made in open court, Rule 7(b) applies and written support was not necessary."); Targan v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 267 U.S.App.D.C. 387 , 838 F.2d 1337, 1340-1341 (D.C.Cir.1988) (one purpose of Federal Rule 7(b) (1) is to create a clear history of a litigation for the parties, later litigants, and reviewing courts); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1193, at 40-41 (1969) ( 2017The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion." 17 Meriwether v. Coughlin , 879 F.2d 1037, 1042 (2d Cir.1989) ("Because the oral motion was made in open court, Rule 7(b) applies and written support was not necessary."); Targan v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 267 U.S.App.D.C. 387 , 838 F.2d 1337, 1340-1341 (D.C.Cir.1988) (one purpose of Federal Rule 7(b) (1) is to create a clear history of a litigation for the parties, later litigants, and reviewing courts); 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1193, at 40-41 (1969) ( | 1 | 2 |
LOGAN COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT v. PLEASANT OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONgreen2 sentences2017Ct. of Pittsburg County , 1998 OK 122, ¶ 11 , 970 P.2d 182 ; Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsa , 1967 OK 41, ¶ 24 , 424 P.2d 69 . 19 Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 18 , 3 P.3d 154, 162 . 20 Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Association , 2016 OK 65, ¶ 25 , 374 P.3d 755, 765 . 2017Ct. of Pittsburg County , 1998 OK 122, ¶ 11, 970 P.2d 182; Steiger v. City National Bank of Tulsa , 1967 OK 41, ¶ 24, 424 P.2d 69. 19 Towne v. Hubbard , 2000 OK 30, ¶ 18, 3 P.3d 154, 162. 20 Logan County Conservation District v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Association , 2016 OK 65, ¶ 25, 374 P.3d 755, 765. | 1 | 2 |
Flanders v. Crane Co.green2 sentences2020The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion." 36 12 O.S.Supp.2013, Ch. 2, App., Rules of the District Courts, Rule 5(C) (emphasis added). 37 Flanders v. Crane Co. , 1984 OK 88 , 693 P.2d 602, 605 (the purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary jury trials) citing Flick v. Crouch , 1967 OK 131 , 434 P.2d 256, 262 . 38 Vance v. Federal Nat. 2020The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion." 36 12 O.S.Supp.2013, Ch. 2, App., Rules of the District Courts, Rule 5(C) (emphasis added). 37 Flanders v. Crane Co. , 1984 OK 88 , 693 P.2d 602, 605 (the purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary jury trials) citing Flick v. Crouch , 1967 OK 131 , 434 P.2d 256, 262 . 38 Vance v. Federal Nat. | 1 | 1 |
Harmon v. Cradduckgreen2 sentences2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 | 1 | 1 |
YOUNG v. STATION 27, INC.green2 sentences2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 | 1 | 1 |
Christian v. Christiangreen2 sentences2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20, 286 P.3d 643, 650, citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127, ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895. 4 1997 OK 26, 934 P.2d 1082. 5 Se 2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 | 1 | 1 |
Chandler v. Dentongreen2 sentences2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 | 1 | 1 |
CHRISTIAN v. CHRISTIANgreen2 sentences2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20, 286 P.3d 643, 650, citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127, ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895. 4 1997 OK 26, 934 P.2d 1082. 5 Se 2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 | 1 | 1 |
Reeds v. Walkergreen2 sentences2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 | 1 | 1 |
Abraham v. Homergreen2 sentences2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 | 1 | 1 |
Hull v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co.green2 sentences2017Co. , 1985 OK 1985 OK 112, 767 P.2d 391, 395, superseded in part by statute on other grounds noted in Hull v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co. , 1989 OK 168, 789 P.2d 1272, 1278. 16 Shanbour v. Hollingsworth , 1996 OK 67, 918 P.2d 73, 75 ("compliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in [51 O.S. 1991] §§ 156 and 157 are prerequisites to the state's consent to be sued and to the exercise of judicial power to remedy the alleged tortious wrong by the government"). 17 Watkins v. Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital , 2016 OK 71, ¶ 22, 377 P.3d 124, 130, citing Reirdo 2017Co. , 1985 OK 1985 OK 112, 767 P.2d 391, 395, superseded in part by statute on other grounds noted in Hull v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co. , 1989 OK 168, 789 P.2d 1272, 1278. 16 Shanbour v. Hollingsworth , 1996 OK 67, 918 P.2d 73, 75 ("compliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in [51 O.S. 1991] §§ 156 and 157 are prerequisites to the state's consent to be sued and to the exercise of judicial power to remedy the alleged tortious wrong by the government"). 17 Watkins v. Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital , 2016 OK 71, ¶ 22, 377 P.3d 124, 130, citing Reirdo | 1 | 1 |
Teel v. Public Service Co. of Oklahomagreen2 sentences2017Co. , 1985 OK 1985 OK 112, 767 P.2d 391, 395, superseded in part by statute on other grounds noted in Hull v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co. , 1989 OK 168, 789 P.2d 1272, 1278. 16 Shanbour v. Hollingsworth , 1996 OK 67, 918 P.2d 73, 75 ("compliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in [51 O.S. 1991] §§ 156 and 157 are prerequisites to the state's consent to be sued and to the exercise of judicial power to remedy the alleged tortious wrong by the government"). 17 Watkins v. Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital , 2016 OK 71, ¶ 22, 377 P.3d 124, 130, citing Reirdo 2017Co. , 1985 OK 1985 OK 112, 767 P.2d 391, 395, superseded in part by statute on other grounds noted in Hull v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co. , 1989 OK 168, 789 P.2d 1272, 1278. 16 Shanbour v. Hollingsworth , 1996 OK 67, 918 P.2d 73, 75 ("compliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in [51 O.S. 1991] §§ 156 and 157 are prerequisites to the state's consent to be sued and to the exercise of judicial power to remedy the alleged tortious wrong by the government"). 17 Watkins v. Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital , 2016 OK 71, ¶ 22, 377 P.3d 124, 130, citing Reirdo | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. State Insurance Fund v. JOA, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Harrison v. City of Albiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cruse v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2022ANALYSIS ¶7 In the GTCA the State adopted sovereign immunity from liability for torts but also waived that immunity for certain torts committed by the State of Oklahoma and its political subdivisions. 51 O.S.2021 §152.1. "[C]ompliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in §§ 156 and 157 are prerequisites to the state's consent to be sued and to the exercise of judicial power to remedy the alleged tortious wrong by the government." Shanbour v. Hollingsworth , 1996 OK 67, ¶7 , 918 P.2d 73 , citing Cruse v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Atoka County , 1995 OK 143 , 910 P.2 2022ANALYSIS ¶7 In the GTCA the State adopted sovereign immunity from liability for torts but also waived that immunity for certain torts committed by the State of Oklahoma and its political subdivisions. 51 O.S.2021 §152.1. "[C]ompliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in §§ 156 and 157 are prerequisites to the state's consent to be sued and to the exercise of judicial power to remedy the alleged tortious wrong by the government." Shanbour v. Hollingsworth , 1996 OK 67, ¶7 , 918 P.2d 73 , citing Cruse v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Atoka County , 1995 OK 143 , 910 P.2 | 2 | 2009–2022 |
State v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2009Judicial power is invoked by the timely filing of the governmental tort claim, and the expiration of the time period in § 157(B) operates to bar judicial enforcement of the claim against the government to which the legislature waived sovereign immunity); State of Oklahoma v. Dixon, 1996 OK 15 , 912 P.2d 842 (pre-lawsuit notice of a claim that complies with the provisions of the GTCA is necessary to invoke the power of the trial court to enforce a governmental tort claims action). 2009Judicial power is invoked by the timely filing of the governmental tort claim, and the expiration of the time period in § 157(B) operates to bar judicial enforcement of the claim against the government to which the legislature waived sovereign immunity); State of Oklahoma v. Dixon, 1996 OK 15 , 912 P.2d 842 (pre-lawsuit notice of a claim that complies with the provisions of the GTCA is necessary to invoke the power of the trial court to enforce a governmental tort claims action). | 2 | 2000–2009 |
Flick v. Crouch
green
2 sentences2020The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion." 36 12 O.S.Supp.2013, Ch. 2, App., Rules of the District Courts, Rule 5(C) (emphasis added). 37 Flanders v. Crane Co. , 1984 OK 88 , 693 P.2d 602, 605 (the purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary jury trials) citing Flick v. Crouch , 1967 OK 131 , 434 P.2d 256, 262 . 38 Vance v. Federal Nat. 2020The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion." 36 12 O.S.Supp.2013, Ch. 2, App., Rules of the District Courts, Rule 5(C) (emphasis added). 37 Flanders v. Crane Co. , 1984 OK 88 , 693 P.2d 602, 605 (the purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary jury trials) citing Flick v. Crouch , 1967 OK 131 , 434 P.2d 256, 262 . 38 Vance v. Federal Nat. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Minie v. Hudson
green
2 sentences2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 2019A failure to specify the sum demanded does not by itself invalidate a written notice: "Failure to state either the date, time, place and circumstances and amount of compensation demanded, or any information requested to comply with the reporting claims to CMS under MMSEA shall not invalidate the notice unless the claimant declines or refuses to furnish such information after demand by the state or political subdivision." Id . § 156 (E). 3 Harmon v. Cradduck . 2012 OK 80, n. 20 , 286 P.3d 643, 650 , citing Martin v. Johnson , 1998 OK 127 , ¶ 28, 975 P.2d 889, 895 . 4 1997 OK 26 , 934 P.2d 108 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kennedy v. City of Talihina
green
2 sentences2018Moreover, said Defendant, § 96 did not apply to extend the time for filing more than ninety (90) days after the date of loss. 51 O.S. § 156(E) ; Hall v. GEO Group , 2014 OK 22 , 324 P.3d 399 . ¶ 10 On May 17, 2017, upon consideration of the parties' filings and argument, the trial court granted Defendant's motion, and dismissed Plaintiff's claim against Defendant with prejudice. 10 Plaintiff appeals and the matter stands submitted on the trial court record. 11 ¶ 11 " '[C]ompliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in §§ 156 and 157 [of the Oklahoma Governmental To 2018Moreover, said Defendant, § 96 did not apply to extend the time for filing more than ninety (90) days after the date of loss. 51 O.S. § 156(E) ; Hall v. GEO Group , 2014 OK 22 , 324 P.3d 399 . ¶ 10 On May 17, 2017, upon consideration of the parties' filings and argument, the trial court granted Defendant's motion, and dismissed Plaintiff's claim against Defendant with prejudice. 10 Plaintiff appeals and the matter stands submitted on the trial court record. 11 ¶ 11 " '[C]ompliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in §§ 156 and 157 [of the Oklahoma Governmental To | 1 | 2018–2018 |
HALL v. THE GEO GROUP, INC
green
1 sentence2018Moreover, said Defendant, § 96 did not apply to extend the time for filing more than ninety (90) days after the date of loss. 51 O.S. § 156(E) ; Hall v. GEO Group , 2014 OK 22 , 324 P.3d 399 . ¶ 10 On May 17, 2017, upon consideration of the parties' filings and argument, the trial court granted Defendant's motion, and dismissed Plaintiff's claim against Defendant with prejudice. 10 Plaintiff appeals and the matter stands submitted on the trial court record. 11 ¶ 11 " '[C]ompliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in §§ 156 and 157 [of the Oklahoma Governmental To | 1 | 2018–2018 |
HALL v. THE GEO GROUP, INC
green
1 sentence2018Moreover, said Defendant, § 96 did not apply to extend the time for filing more than ninety (90) days after the date of loss. 51 O.S. § 156(E) ; Hall v. GEO Group , 2014 OK 22 , 324 P.3d 399 . ¶ 10 On May 17, 2017, upon consideration of the parties' filings and argument, the trial court granted Defendant's motion, and dismissed Plaintiff's claim against Defendant with prejudice. 10 Plaintiff appeals and the matter stands submitted on the trial court record. 11 ¶ 11 " '[C]ompliance with the written notice of claim and denial of claim provisions in §§ 156 and 157 [of the Oklahoma Governmental To | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Miller v. Exchange Nat. Bank of Tulsa neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| County Board of Equalization v. Muskogee Industrial Finance Corp. green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Ketcham v. Oil Field Supply Co. neutral | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Wichita & Western Railway Co. v. Koch neutral | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.