inference presumption in Oklahoma

1995Wigmore, Evidence 439 (McNaughton rev. 1961).” Ramil v. Keller, 68 Haw. 608 , 726 P.2d 254, 262 (1986) (quoting Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 , 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1557-58 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976)).

1995Wigmore, Evidence 439 (McNaughton rev. 1961).” Ramil v. Keller, 68 Haw. 608 , 726 P.2d 254, 262 (1986) (quoting Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 , 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1557-58 , 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976)).

1956Kress & Co. v. Bradshaw, supra, this court quoted from the case of Smith v. Clark, 37 Utah 116 , 106 P. 653 , 26 L.R.A., N.S., 953, Ann.Cas.1912B, 1366, as follows: “ ‘ * * * When by proof of facts or circumstances tending to show that the plaintiff was restrained or detained . or imprisoned by the defendant, without a warrant, or other, process, or by threats or force, or other facts or circumstances which naturally give rise to the inference or presumption that the restraint or imprisonment was wrongful or unlawful, he undoubtedly has made a prima facie case.

1956Kress & Co. v. Bradshaw, supra, this court quoted from the case of Smith v. Clark, 37 Utah 116 , 106 P. 653 , 26 L.R.A., N.S., 953, Ann.Cas.1912B, 1366, as follows: “ ‘ * * * When by proof of facts or circumstances tending to show that the plaintiff was restrained or detained . or imprisoned by the defendant, without a warrant, or other, process, or by threats or force, or other facts or circumstances which naturally give rise to the inference or presumption that the restraint or imprisonment was wrongful or unlawful, he undoubtedly has made a prima facie case.

1929Stumpf v. Montgomery, 101 Okla. 257 , 226 Pac. 65 , 32 A. L.

1929Stumpf v. Montgomery, 101 Okla. 257 , 226 Pac. 65 , 32 A. L.

1978Neither of the cases cited for the legal notion —Coachman v. Sims, 36 Okl. 536 , 129 P. 845 (1913) and Andrews v. Hooper, 138 Okl. 103 , 280 P. 424 (1929)—involve an issue of whether a common-law marriage existed, but both involved an attack by third parties on the validity of a formal marriage contract.

1978Neither of the cases cited for the legal notion —Coachman v. Sims, 36 Okl. 536 , 129 P. 845 (1913) and Andrews v. Hooper, 138 Okl. 103 , 280 P. 424 (1929)—involve an issue of whether a common-law marriage existed, but both involved an attack by third parties on the validity of a formal marriage contract.

1978Neither of the cases cited for the legal notion —Coachman v. Sims, 36 Okl. 536 , 129 P. 845 (1913) and Andrews v. Hooper, 138 Okl. 103 , 280 P. 424 (1929)—involve an issue of whether a common-law marriage existed, but both involved an attack by third parties on the validity of a formal marriage contract.

1967As held by this court in the second paragraph of its syllabus to National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Elliott, supra, based upon the same statement in the Kansas case of Emigh v. Andrews, supra: “An inference (of negligence' under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur) arises only from an established foundation fact.

1953Defendants rely upon Prest-O-Lite Co., Inc., v. Howery, 169 Okla. 408 , 37 P. 2d 303 ; Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Worley, 185 Okla. 265 , 91 P. 2d 679 ; Shell Oil Co. v. Blubaugh, 199 Okla. 353 , 185 P. 2d 959 , and Mul-Berry Oil Co. v. Penny, 195 Okla. 574 , 159 P. 2d 243 , as supporting their assertion of a want of proof to sustain the verdict and judgment.

1953Defendants rely upon Prest-O-Lite Co., Inc., v. Howery, 169 Okla. 408 , 37 P. 2d 303 ; Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Worley, 185 Okla. 265 , 91 P. 2d 679 ; Shell Oil Co. v. Blubaugh, 199 Okla. 353 , 185 P. 2d 959 , and Mul-Berry Oil Co. v. Penny, 195 Okla. 574 , 159 P. 2d 243 , as supporting their assertion of a want of proof to sustain the verdict and judgment.

1953Defendants rely upon Prest-O-Lite Co., Inc., v. Howery, 169 Okla. 408 , 37 P. 2d 303 ; Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Worley, 185 Okla. 265 , 91 P. 2d 679 ; Shell Oil Co. v. Blubaugh, 199 Okla. 353 , 185 P. 2d 959 , and Mul-Berry Oil Co. v. Penny, 195 Okla. 574 , 159 P. 2d 243 , as supporting their assertion of a want of proof to sustain the verdict and judgment.

1953Defendants rely upon Prest-O-Lite Co., Inc., v. Howery, 169 Okla. 408 , 37 P. 2d 303 ; Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Worley, 185 Okla. 265 , 91 P. 2d 679 ; Shell Oil Co. v. Blubaugh, 199 Okla. 353 , 185 P. 2d 959 , and Mul-Berry Oil Co. v. Penny, 195 Okla. 574 , 159 P. 2d 243 , as supporting their assertion of a want of proof to sustain the verdict and judgment.

1953Defendants rely upon Prest-O-Lite Co., Inc., v. Howery, 169 Okla. 408 , 37 P. 2d 303 ; Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Worley, 185 Okla. 265 , 91 P. 2d 679 ; Shell Oil Co. v. Blubaugh, 199 Okla. 353 , 185 P. 2d 959 , and Mul-Berry Oil Co. v. Penny, 195 Okla. 574 , 159 P. 2d 243 , as supporting their assertion of a want of proof to sustain the verdict and judgment.

1953Defendants rely upon Prest-O-Lite Co., Inc., v. Howery, 169 Okla. 408 , 37 P. 2d 303 ; Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Worley, 185 Okla. 265 , 91 P. 2d 679 ; Shell Oil Co. v. Blubaugh, 199 Okla. 353 , 185 P. 2d 959 , and Mul-Berry Oil Co. v. Penny, 195 Okla. 574 , 159 P. 2d 243 , as supporting their assertion of a want of proof to sustain the verdict and judgment.

1953Defendants rely upon Prest-O-Lite Co., Inc., v. Howery, 169 Okla. 408 , 37 P. 2d 303 ; Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Worley, 185 Okla. 265 , 91 P. 2d 679 ; Shell Oil Co. v. Blubaugh, 199 Okla. 353 , 185 P. 2d 959 , and Mul-Berry Oil Co. v. Penny, 195 Okla. 574 , 159 P. 2d 243 , as supporting their assertion of a want of proof to sustain the verdict and judgment.

1953Defendants rely upon Prest-O-Lite Co., Inc., v. Howery, 169 Okla. 408 , 37 P. 2d 303 ; Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Worley, 185 Okla. 265 , 91 P. 2d 679 ; Shell Oil Co. v. Blubaugh, 199 Okla. 353 , 185 P. 2d 959 , and Mul-Berry Oil Co. v. Penny, 195 Okla. 574 , 159 P. 2d 243 , as supporting their assertion of a want of proof to sustain the verdict and judgment.

1952Direct proof of this relationship is required at the time of the accidental personal injury,” which is in harmony with the earlier opinions in the cases of Moore and Gleason v. Taylor, 97 Okla. 193 , 223 P. 611 ; Hamilton v. Randall, 136 Okla. 170 , 276 P. 705 , and Mastin v. Black, 176 Okla. 46 , 54 P. 2d 399 .

1952Direct proof of this relationship is required at the time of the accidental personal injury,” which is in harmony with the earlier opinions in the cases of Moore and Gleason v. Taylor, 97 Okla. 193 , 223 P. 611 ; Hamilton v. Randall, 136 Okla. 170 , 276 P. 705 , and Mastin v. Black, 176 Okla. 46 , 54 P. 2d 399 .

1952Direct proof of this relationship is required at the time of the accidental personal injury,” which is in harmony with the earlier opinions in the cases of Moore and Gleason v. Taylor, 97 Okla. 193 , 223 P. 611 ; Hamilton v. Randall, 136 Okla. 170 , 276 P. 705 , and Mastin v. Black, 176 Okla. 46 , 54 P. 2d 399 .

1952Direct proof of this relationship is required at the time of the accidental personal injury,” which is in harmony with the earlier opinions in the cases of Moore and Gleason v. Taylor, 97 Okla. 193 , 223 P. 611 ; Hamilton v. Randall, 136 Okla. 170 , 276 P. 705 , and Mastin v. Black, 176 Okla. 46 , 54 P. 2d 399 .

1952Direct proof of this relationship is required at the time of the accidental personal injury,” which is in harmony with the earlier opinions in the cases of Moore and Gleason v. Taylor, 97 Okla. 193 , 223 P. 611 ; Hamilton v. Randall, 136 Okla. 170 , 276 P. 705 , and Mastin v. Black, 176 Okla. 46 , 54 P. 2d 399 .

1952Direct proof of this relationship is required at the time of the accidental personal injury,” which is in harmony with the earlier opinions in the cases of Moore and Gleason v. Taylor, 97 Okla. 193 , 223 P. 611 ; Hamilton v. Randall, 136 Okla. 170 , 276 P. 705 , and Mastin v. Black, 176 Okla. 46 , 54 P. 2d 399 .

1932Oolt Co. v. Koehn, 128 Okla. 39 , 260 P. 1061 , and Tibbets & Pleasant v. Town of Fairfax, 145 Okla. 211 , 292 P. 9 , are quoted as machinery cases, and the brief-maker draws the inference that the rule ought to be stronger with reference to seed, and 35 Cyc, 399, 409, and some cases cited in note 83 thereto from Kansas and Minnesota and Missouri and New York and New .Tersey. are called to our attention, and inferences from dealings are referred to, and the case of Miller v. Germain Seed Co. (Cal.) 222 P. 817 , 32 A. L.

1932Oolt Co. v. Koehn, 128 Okla. 39 , 260 P. 1061 , and Tibbets & Pleasant v. Town of Fairfax, 145 Okla. 211 , 292 P. 9 , are quoted as machinery cases, and the brief-maker draws the inference that the rule ought to be stronger with reference to seed, and 35 Cyc, 399, 409, and some cases cited in note 83 thereto from Kansas and Minnesota and Missouri and New York and New .Tersey. are called to our attention, and inferences from dealings are referred to, and the case of Miller v. Germain Seed Co. (Cal.) 222 P. 817 , 32 A. L.

1932Oolt Co. v. Koehn, 128 Okla. 39 , 260 P. 1061 , and Tibbets & Pleasant v. Town of Fairfax, 145 Okla. 211 , 292 P. 9 , are quoted as machinery cases, and the brief-maker draws the inference that the rule ought to be stronger with reference to seed, and 35 Cyc, 399, 409, and some cases cited in note 83 thereto from Kansas and Minnesota and Missouri and New York and New .Tersey. are called to our attention, and inferences from dealings are referred to, and the case of Miller v. Germain Seed Co. (Cal.) 222 P. 817 , 32 A. L.

1932Oolt Co. v. Koehn, 128 Okla. 39 , 260 P. 1061 , and Tibbets & Pleasant v. Town of Fairfax, 145 Okla. 211 , 292 P. 9 , are quoted as machinery cases, and the brief-maker draws the inference that the rule ought to be stronger with reference to seed, and 35 Cyc, 399, 409, and some cases cited in note 83 thereto from Kansas and Minnesota and Missouri and New York and New .Tersey. are called to our attention, and inferences from dealings are referred to, and the case of Miller v. Germain Seed Co. (Cal.) 222 P. 817 , 32 A. L.

1927Stumpff v. Montgomery, 101 Okla. 257 , 226 Pac. 65 ; Kramer v. Nichols-Chandler Home Building & Brokerage Co. et al., 103 Okla. 208 , 229 Pac. 767 ; McCullough v. Harshman, 99 Okla. 262 , 226 Pac. 555 .

1927Stumpff v. Montgomery, 101 Okla. 257 , 226 Pac. 65 ; Kramer v. Nichols-Chandler Home Building & Brokerage Co. et al., 103 Okla. 208 , 229 Pac. 767 ; McCullough v. Harshman, 99 Okla. 262 , 226 Pac. 555 .

1927Stumpff v. Montgomery, 101 Okla. 257 , 226 Pac. 65 ; Kramer v. Nichols-Chandler Home Building & Brokerage Co. et al., 103 Okla. 208 , 229 Pac. 767 ; McCullough v. Harshman, 99 Okla. 262 , 226 Pac. 555 .

1927Stumpff v. Montgomery, 101 Okla. 257 , 226 Pac. 65 ; Kramer v. Nichols-Chandler Home Building & Brokerage Co. et al., 103 Okla. 208 , 229 Pac. 767 ; McCullough v. Harshman, 99 Okla. 262 , 226 Pac. 555 .

1915Ev. 715 a., State v. Sheppart, 64 Kan. 451 , 67 Pac. 870 .

1915Ev. 715 a., State v. Sheppart, 64 Kan. 451 , 67 Pac. 870 .