position defense in Oklahoma

2007No other purpose can be gleaned from this sentence that would be consistent with the Legislature's vesting in the workers' compensation court the responsibility to determine disability. 85 O.S.Supp.2005, § 17(A)(1); Yocum, 2005 OK 27 at ¶ 14 , 130 P.3d at 220-221 . ¶ 10 Without any argument, employer takes the position that the presumption in favor of the treating physician's opinions may only be rebutted by a court-appointed independent medical examiner.

2007No other purpose can be gleaned from this sentence that would be consistent with the Legislature's vesting in the workers' compensation court the responsibility to determine disability. 85 O.S.Supp.2005, § 17(A)(1); Yocum, 2005 OK 27 at ¶ 14 , 130 P.3d at 220-221 . ¶ 10 Without any argument, employer takes the position that the presumption in favor of the treating physician's opinions may only be rebutted by a court-appointed independent medical examiner.

2006School District argues that the written response by Mr. Davis’ attorney on October 5, 2001, some ten months after the adjuster’s letter, was not a response within a reasonable time. ¶ 11 The case of Wallace v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, 2000 OK CIV APP 131 , 15 P.3d 985 , involved a request made by the county’s insurer for claimant to provide a recorded statement and an unexplained seven-month delay by the claimant in providing the statement.

2006School District argues that the written response by Mr. Davis’ attorney on October 5, 2001, some ten months after the adjuster’s letter, was not a response within a reasonable time. ¶ 11 The case of Wallace v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, 2000 OK CIV APP 131 , 15 P.3d 985 , involved a request made by the county’s insurer for claimant to provide a recorded statement and an unexplained seven-month delay by the claimant in providing the statement.

1995The United States Supreme Court held in Ake that, "when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense." Id. 470 U.S. at 83 , 105 S.Ct. at 1096 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 66 .

1995The United States Supreme Court held in Ake that, "when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense." Id. 470 U.S. at 83 , 105 S.Ct. at 1096 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 66 .

1993While this is a plausible argument, this Court is constrained to conclude that the intent of the Legislature has been determined by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Figgins, supra, and this Court is no longer in a position to rule upon this matter as the first impression question Claimant wishes to present.

1992In Williams Company v. Lawrence, 824 P.2d 1134 (Okla.1992), we noted that there is no support for the position that a hearing loss is divisible.

1978Belle v. State, Okl.Cr., 516 P.2d 551 (1973).

1959In the language of Judge Selden in a leading case [Williamson v. Brown, 15 N.Y. 354 ]: “ ‘The phraseology uniformly used, as descriptive of the kind of notice in question, sufficient to put the party upon inquiry, would seem to imply that if the party is faithful in making inquiries, but fails to discover the conveyance, he will be protected.

1957Counsel says: “It is the defendant’s position that the rule of law to be applied to affidavits for the issuance of a search warrant wherein the contents thereof is parallel to defendant’s exhibit No. 3, is that where a ‘general allegation’, standing alone, might be adequate, but when ‘specific facts’ are set forth which purport to show the existence of probable cause, then the ‘general allegation’ must yield to the ‘facts averred’ and the weight or sufficiency -of such ‘general allegations’ are cancelled and nullified.” Cited in support of defendant’s thesis is Ingraham v. Blevins, 236 Ky. 505

1947Corp., 185 Okla. 206 , 90 P. 2d 936 ; Cooke v. Westgate-Greenland Oil Co. et al., 185 Okla. 209 , 90 P. 2d 940 ; Thompson et al. v. Johnson-Kemnitz Drilling Co., 193 Okla. 507 , 145 P. 2d 422 ; and for this they should be penalized by being denied participation in the working interest and should be required to accept a reasonable bonus for a lease and be relegated to the position of royalty owners.

1947Corp., 185 Okla. 206 , 90 P. 2d 936 ; Cooke v. Westgate-Greenland Oil Co. et al., 185 Okla. 209 , 90 P. 2d 940 ; Thompson et al. v. Johnson-Kemnitz Drilling Co., 193 Okla. 507 , 145 P. 2d 422 ; and for this they should be penalized by being denied participation in the working interest and should be required to accept a reasonable bonus for a lease and be relegated to the position of royalty owners.

1947Corp., 185 Okla. 206 , 90 P. 2d 936 ; Cooke v. Westgate-Greenland Oil Co. et al., 185 Okla. 209 , 90 P. 2d 940 ; Thompson et al. v. Johnson-Kemnitz Drilling Co., 193 Okla. 507 , 145 P. 2d 422 ; and for this they should be penalized by being denied participation in the working interest and should be required to accept a reasonable bonus for a lease and be relegated to the position of royalty owners.

1947Corp., 185 Okla. 206 , 90 P. 2d 936 ; Cooke v. Westgate-Greenland Oil Co. et al., 185 Okla. 209 , 90 P. 2d 940 ; Thompson et al. v. Johnson-Kemnitz Drilling Co., 193 Okla. 507 , 145 P. 2d 422 ; and for this they should be penalized by being denied participation in the working interest and should be required to accept a reasonable bonus for a lease and be relegated to the position of royalty owners.

1947Corp., 185 Okla. 206 , 90 P. 2d 936 ; Cooke v. Westgate-Greenland Oil Co. et al., 185 Okla. 209 , 90 P. 2d 940 ; Thompson et al. v. Johnson-Kemnitz Drilling Co., 193 Okla. 507 , 145 P. 2d 422 ; and for this they should be penalized by being denied participation in the working interest and should be required to accept a reasonable bonus for a lease and be relegated to the position of royalty owners.

1947Corp., 185 Okla. 206 , 90 P. 2d 936 ; Cooke v. Westgate-Greenland Oil Co. et al., 185 Okla. 209 , 90 P. 2d 940 ; Thompson et al. v. Johnson-Kemnitz Drilling Co., 193 Okla. 507 , 145 P. 2d 422 ; and for this they should be penalized by being denied participation in the working interest and should be required to accept a reasonable bonus for a lease and be relegated to the position of royalty owners.

1942Galt et al. v. Metscher, 103 Okla. 271 , 229 P. 522 , and the other cases to the same effect, relied on by defendants, holding that where subsequent to the execution of a lease a tract of land is subdivided and sold in separate tracts subject to the lease, the owners of such separate tracts are entitled to all the royalties accruing from their separate tracts, have no application to the question herein, that is, the division of royalties under a joint lease executed by the owners of separate contiguous parcels of land as a single tract.

1942Galt et al. v. Metscher, 103 Okla. 271 , 229 P. 522 , and the other cases to the same effect, relied on by defendants, holding that where subsequent to the execution of a lease a tract of land is subdivided and sold in separate tracts subject to the lease, the owners of such separate tracts are entitled to all the royalties accruing from their separate tracts, have no application to the question herein, that is, the division of royalties under a joint lease executed by the owners of separate contiguous parcels of land as a single tract.

1935In support of their contention they cite the following cases: Willoughby, Receiver, v. Ball, 18 Okla. 535 , 90 P. 1017 ; Milburn v. Miners & Citizens Bank, 101 Okla. 281 , 226 P. 42 ; Elling v. Bank of Jefferson, 114 Okla. 147 , 244 P. 793 ; First National Bank of Tulsa v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159 , 264 P. 184 .

1935In support of their contention they cite the following cases: Willoughby, Receiver, v. Ball, 18 Okla. 535 , 90 P. 1017 ; Milburn v. Miners & Citizens Bank, 101 Okla. 281 , 226 P. 42 ; Elling v. Bank of Jefferson, 114 Okla. 147 , 244 P. 793 ; First National Bank of Tulsa v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159 , 264 P. 184 .

1935In support of their contention they cite the following cases: Willoughby, Receiver, v. Ball, 18 Okla. 535 , 90 P. 1017 ; Milburn v. Miners & Citizens Bank, 101 Okla. 281 , 226 P. 42 ; Elling v. Bank of Jefferson, 114 Okla. 147 , 244 P. 793 ; First National Bank of Tulsa v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159 , 264 P. 184 .

1935In support of their contention they cite the following cases: Willoughby, Receiver, v. Ball, 18 Okla. 535 , 90 P. 1017 ; Milburn v. Miners & Citizens Bank, 101 Okla. 281 , 226 P. 42 ; Elling v. Bank of Jefferson, 114 Okla. 147 , 244 P. 793 ; First National Bank of Tulsa v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159 , 264 P. 184 .

1935In support of their contention they cite the following cases: Willoughby, Receiver, v. Ball, 18 Okla. 535 , 90 P. 1017 ; Milburn v. Miners & Citizens Bank, 101 Okla. 281 , 226 P. 42 ; Elling v. Bank of Jefferson, 114 Okla. 147 , 244 P. 793 ; First National Bank of Tulsa v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159 , 264 P. 184 .

1935In support of their contention they cite the following cases: Willoughby, Receiver, v. Ball, 18 Okla. 535 , 90 P. 1017 ; Milburn v. Miners & Citizens Bank, 101 Okla. 281 , 226 P. 42 ; Elling v. Bank of Jefferson, 114 Okla. 147 , 244 P. 793 ; First National Bank of Tulsa v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159 , 264 P. 184 .

1935In support of their contention they cite the following cases: Willoughby, Receiver, v. Ball, 18 Okla. 535 , 90 P. 1017 ; Milburn v. Miners & Citizens Bank, 101 Okla. 281 , 226 P. 42 ; Elling v. Bank of Jefferson, 114 Okla. 147 , 244 P. 793 ; First National Bank of Tulsa v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159 , 264 P. 184 .

1935In support of their contention they cite the following cases: Willoughby, Receiver, v. Ball, 18 Okla. 535 , 90 P. 1017 ; Milburn v. Miners & Citizens Bank, 101 Okla. 281 , 226 P. 42 ; Elling v. Bank of Jefferson, 114 Okla. 147 , 244 P. 793 ; First National Bank of Tulsa v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159 , 264 P. 184 .

1915This subject is very thoroughly discussed by Galbraith, C., in the case of McKellop et ux. v. Dewitz et al., 42 Okla. 220 , 140 Pac. 1161 , 52 L.

1915This subject is very thoroughly discussed by Galbraith, C., in the case of McKellop et ux. v. Dewitz et al., 42 Okla. 220 , 140 Pac. 1161 , 52 L.