time-honored rule in Oklahoma

14 Oklahoma opinions name it 4 courts 1961–2020 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 (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
cluster 670612green ca3 · 1994 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020It found if the finance manager was required by duty to read aloud or explain all of these provisions merely because he verified certain details it would "swallow[] up the time-honored rule that the plain, unambiguous terms of a written contract are binding on the parties." Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Brown Flight Rental One Corp., 24 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 1994) (applying Oklahoma law). 2020It found if the finance manager was required by duty to read aloud or explain all of these provisions merely because he verified certain details it would "swallow[] up the time-honored rule that the plain, unambiguous terms of a written contract are binding on the parties." Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Brown Flight Rental One Corp., 24 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 1994) (applying Oklahoma law).	1	1
Ex Parte Higgsgreen oklacrimapp · 1953 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 1 sentence 1996See Ex parte Higgs, 97 OH.Cr. 338, 341, 263 P.2d 752, 756 (1953).	1	1
Abraham v. Homergreen okla · 1924 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981Spacing Order is a Quasi Jurisdictional Fact; A Condition Precedent In Abraham v. Homer, 102 Okl. 12, 14 , 226 P. 45, 47 (1924), we held: “Whenever by a statute which the court has determined to be not merely directory but absolutely mandatory the Legislature has required acts to be done, and provides that the Court shall not render a particular judgment without facts showing compliance with such statute, then such facts are jurisdictional to the power of the Court to render that particular judgment.” (Emphasis supplied). **** “All such facts not constituting proof of the existence of the su 1981Spacing Order is a Quasi Jurisdictional Fact; A Condition Precedent In Abraham v. Homer, 102 Okl. 12, 14 , 226 P. 45, 47 (1924), we held: “Whenever by a statute which the court has determined to be not merely directory but absolutely mandatory the Legislature has required acts to be done, and provides that the Court shall not render a particular judgment without facts showing compliance with such statute, then such facts are jurisdictional to the power of the Court to render that particular judgment.” (Emphasis supplied). **** “All such facts not constituting proof of the existence of the su	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 (20)

Case	Cited	Years
Silk v. Phillips Petroleum Co. green okla · 1988 2 sentences 2020It also noted our decision in Silk v. Phillips Petroleum Co., where this Court concluded a literate adult involved in an arms-length business transaction could not claim to be unaware of a provision in a written contract that was plainly captioned and separately signed by her, even though the provision, which she did not read, was not mentioned by the other party during contract discussions. 1988 OK 93 , Â¶Â¶22 & 34, 760 P.2d 174 . 2020It also noted our decision in Silk v. Phillips Petroleum Co., where this Court concluded a literate adult involved in an arms-length business transaction could not claim to be unaware of a provision in a written contract that was plainly captioned and separately signed by her, even though the provision, which she did not read, was not mentioned by the other party during contract discussions. 1988 OK 93 , Â¶Â¶22 & 34, 760 P.2d 174 .	1	2020–2020
Hendrick v. Walters green okla · 1993 2 sentences 2011In Hendrick v. Walters, 1993 OK 162, 113 , 865 P.2d 1232 , we explained: A time-honored rule teaches that a revising statute (or, as in this case, a constitutional amendment) takes the place of all the former laws existing upon the subject with which it deals. 2011In Hendrick v. Walters, 1993 OK 162, 113 , 865 P.2d 1232 , we explained: A time-honored rule teaches that a revising statute (or, as in this case, a constitutional amendment) takes the place of all the former laws existing upon the subject with which it deals.	1	2011–2011
Myers v. Lashley green okla · 2002 2 sentences 2002Myers v. Lashley, 2002 OK 14 , 44 P.3d 553, 561 . 2002Myers v. Lashley, 2002 OK 14 , 44 P.3d 553, 561 .	1	2002–2002
Consolidated Pipe Line Co. v. Mahon green okla · 1931 2 sentences 1999Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 8.42 (1998), considers this statement to be “[t]he proper application of the increased-risk test.” In the instant case, members of the general public were not required to go out in the rain to attend to clients of Employer for the benefit of Employer as Claimant was required to do. ¶ 7 Risk analysis must be applied consistent with the time honored test for “arising out of employment” set forth in the first syllabus of Mahon : “[An injury] ‘arises out of the employment’ when there is apparent to the rational mind upon consideration of all the circums 1999Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 8.42 (1998), considers this statement to be “[t]he proper application of the increased-risk test.” In the instant case, members of the general public were not required to go out in the rain to attend to clients of Employer for the benefit of Employer as Claimant was required to do. ¶ 7 Risk analysis must be applied consistent with the time honored test for “arising out of employment” set forth in the first syllabus of Mahon : “[An injury] ‘arises out of the employment’ when there is apparent to the rational mind upon consideration of all the circums	1	1999–1999
City of Duncan v. Bingham green okla · 1964 1 sentence 1985City of Duncan v. Bingham , supra. This conclusion is bolstered by the time-honored rule of construction that laws granting pensions and retirement benefits to public employees should be construed liberally and, in cases of doubt, resolved in favor of the employees benefited.	1	1985–1985
Nichols v. State green oklacrimapp · 1977 1 sentence 1978Nichols v. State, Okl.Cr., 564 P.2d 667 (1977), et al.	1	1978–1978
Moore v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1976 2 sentences 1977Moore v. State, Okl.Cr., 553 P.2d 209 (1976). 1977Moore v. State, Okl.Cr., 553 P.2d 209 (1976).	1	1977–1977
Lewis v. M. C.C. of Cumberland green md · 1947 1 sentence 1974Lewis v. Mayor and City Council of Cumberland, 189 Md. 58 , 54 A. *321 2d 319 (1947); Fretz v. City of Edmond, supra. It is held that the classifications the City has imposed on its water, sewer, and garbage rate structure, insofar as hotels and motels are concerned are arbitrary and unjustly discriminatory under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.	1	1974–1974
Newman v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1926 2 sentences 1973Horn v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 354 , 164 P. 683 ; Peters v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 367 , 250 P. 1032 ; Newman v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 296 , 250 P. 554 ; Vice v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 405 , 22 P.2d 1039 ; Calloway v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 418 , 262 P. 696 .” There is nothing in the entire record to show the trial court violated this time honored rule. 1973Horn v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 354 , 164 P. 683 ; Peters v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 367 , 250 P. 1032 ; Newman v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 296 , 250 P. 554 ; Vice v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 405 , 22 P.2d 1039 ; Calloway v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 418 , 262 P. 696 .” There is nothing in the entire record to show the trial court violated this time honored rule.	1	1973–1973
Calloway v. State green oklacrimapp · 1928 2 sentences 1973Horn v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 354 , 164 P. 683 ; Peters v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 367 , 250 P. 1032 ; Newman v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 296 , 250 P. 554 ; Vice v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 405 , 22 P.2d 1039 ; Calloway v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 418 , 262 P. 696 .” There is nothing in the entire record to show the trial court violated this time honored rule. 1973Horn v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 354 , 164 P. 683 ; Peters v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 367 , 250 P. 1032 ; Newman v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 296 , 250 P. 554 ; Vice v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 405 , 22 P.2d 1039 ; Calloway v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 418 , 262 P. 696 .” There is nothing in the entire record to show the trial court violated this time honored rule.	1	1973–1973
Vice v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1933 2 sentences 1973Horn v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 354 , 164 P. 683 ; Peters v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 367 , 250 P. 1032 ; Newman v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 296 , 250 P. 554 ; Vice v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 405 , 22 P.2d 1039 ; Calloway v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 418 , 262 P. 696 .” There is nothing in the entire record to show the trial court violated this time honored rule. 1973Horn v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 354 , 164 P. 683 ; Peters v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 367 , 250 P. 1032 ; Newman v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 296 , 250 P. 554 ; Vice v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 405 , 22 P.2d 1039 ; Calloway v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 418 , 262 P. 696 .” There is nothing in the entire record to show the trial court violated this time honored rule.	1	1973–1973
Peters v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1926 2 sentences 1973Horn v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 354 , 164 P. 683 ; Peters v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 367 , 250 P. 1032 ; Newman v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 296 , 250 P. 554 ; Vice v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 405 , 22 P.2d 1039 ; Calloway v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 418 , 262 P. 696 .” There is nothing in the entire record to show the trial court violated this time honored rule. 1973Horn v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 354 , 164 P. 683 ; Peters v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 367 , 250 P. 1032 ; Newman v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 296 , 250 P. 554 ; Vice v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 405 , 22 P.2d 1039 ; Calloway v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 418 , 262 P. 696 .” There is nothing in the entire record to show the trial court violated this time honored rule.	1	1973–1973
Horn v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1917 2 sentences 1973Horn v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 354 , 164 P. 683 ; Peters v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 367 , 250 P. 1032 ; Newman v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 296 , 250 P. 554 ; Vice v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 405 , 22 P.2d 1039 ; Calloway v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 418 , 262 P. 696 .” There is nothing in the entire record to show the trial court violated this time honored rule. 1973Horn v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 354 , 164 P. 683 ; Peters v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 367 , 250 P. 1032 ; Newman v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 296 , 250 P. 554 ; Vice v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 405 , 22 P.2d 1039 ; Calloway v. State, 38 Okl.Cr. 418 , 262 P. 696 .” There is nothing in the entire record to show the trial court violated this time honored rule.	1	1973–1973
Irwin v. Irwin green okla · 1965 1 sentence 1969In Erwin v. Erwin, Okl., 433 P.2d 931 (1965), the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated in the body of the opinion, at page 934, as follows: "In this view we are strengthened by the time-honored rule of statutory construction that 'a change of phraseology from that of the original act will raise the presumption that a change of meaning was also intended' citation.	1	1969–1969
Special Indemnity Fund v. McFee green okla · 1948 2 sentences 1964City of Ardmore v. Wickware, supra, and Hamilton v. Midwestern Instruments, Inc., supra. And in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Osborn, 166 Okl. 235 , 26 P.2d 934 ; Nuway Laundry Co. v. Trice, 182 Okl. 518 , 78 P.2d 706 ; Special Indemnity Fund v. McFee, 200 Okl. 288 , 193 P.2d 301 , and other cases, we have held that where the claimant’s evi dence was sufficient to establish notice the burden was upon the employer to show that the failure to give written notice had been prejudicial. 1964City of Ardmore v. Wickware, supra, and Hamilton v. Midwestern Instruments, Inc., supra. And in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Osborn, 166 Okl. 235 , 26 P.2d 934 ; Nuway Laundry Co. v. Trice, 182 Okl. 518 , 78 P.2d 706 ; Special Indemnity Fund v. McFee, 200 Okl. 288 , 193 P.2d 301 , and other cases, we have held that where the claimant’s evi dence was sufficient to establish notice the burden was upon the employer to show that the failure to give written notice had been prejudicial.	1	1964–1964
City of Ardmore v. Wickware neutral okla · 1956 1 sentence 1964City of Ardmore v. Wickware, supra, and Hamilton v. Midwestern Instruments, Inc., supra. And in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Osborn, 166 Okl. 235 , 26 P.2d 934 ; Nuway Laundry Co. v. Trice, 182 Okl. 518 , 78 P.2d 706 ; Special Indemnity Fund v. McFee, 200 Okl. 288 , 193 P.2d 301 , and other cases, we have held that where the claimant’s evi dence was sufficient to establish notice the burden was upon the employer to show that the failure to give written notice had been prejudicial.	1	1964–1964
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Osborn neutral okla · 1933 2 sentences 1964City of Ardmore v. Wickware, supra, and Hamilton v. Midwestern Instruments, Inc., supra. And in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Osborn, 166 Okl. 235 , 26 P.2d 934 ; Nuway Laundry Co. v. Trice, 182 Okl. 518 , 78 P.2d 706 ; Special Indemnity Fund v. McFee, 200 Okl. 288 , 193 P.2d 301 , and other cases, we have held that where the claimant’s evi dence was sufficient to establish notice the burden was upon the employer to show that the failure to give written notice had been prejudicial. 1964City of Ardmore v. Wickware, supra, and Hamilton v. Midwestern Instruments, Inc., supra. And in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Osborn, 166 Okl. 235 , 26 P.2d 934 ; Nuway Laundry Co. v. Trice, 182 Okl. 518 , 78 P.2d 706 ; Special Indemnity Fund v. McFee, 200 Okl. 288 , 193 P.2d 301 , and other cases, we have held that where the claimant’s evi dence was sufficient to establish notice the burden was upon the employer to show that the failure to give written notice had been prejudicial.	1	1964–1964
Nuway Laundry Co. v. Trice green okla · 1938 2 sentences 1964City of Ardmore v. Wickware, supra, and Hamilton v. Midwestern Instruments, Inc., supra. And in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Osborn, 166 Okl. 235 , 26 P.2d 934 ; Nuway Laundry Co. v. Trice, 182 Okl. 518 , 78 P.2d 706 ; Special Indemnity Fund v. McFee, 200 Okl. 288 , 193 P.2d 301 , and other cases, we have held that where the claimant’s evi dence was sufficient to establish notice the burden was upon the employer to show that the failure to give written notice had been prejudicial. 1964City of Ardmore v. Wickware, supra, and Hamilton v. Midwestern Instruments, Inc., supra. And in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Osborn, 166 Okl. 235 , 26 P.2d 934 ; Nuway Laundry Co. v. Trice, 182 Okl. 518 , 78 P.2d 706 ; Special Indemnity Fund v. McFee, 200 Okl. 288 , 193 P.2d 301 , and other cases, we have held that where the claimant’s evi dence was sufficient to establish notice the burden was upon the employer to show that the failure to give written notice had been prejudicial.	1	1964–1964
Blakemore v. State green oklacrimapp · 1928 1 sentence 1961First State Bank of Keota v. Bridges, 39 Okl. 355 , 135 P. 378 .	1	1961–1961
First State Bank of Keota v. Bridges green okla · 1913 1 sentence 1961First State Bank of Keota v. Bridges, 39 Okl. 355 , 135 P. 378 .	1	1961–1961

Where else courts name it

CA 104 (1901–2025) PA 52 (1919–2018) FL 31 (1955–2014) NY 29 (1941–2023) TX 21 (1930–2026) TN 20 (1979–2022) IL 15 (1947–2005) VA 15 (1996–2026) OK 14 (1961–2020) GA 13 (1934–2008) MO 13 (1913–2018) CT 12 (1985–2021) OH 11 (1983–2017) MI 10 (1966–2025) IA 9 (1961–2026) KS 9 (1970–2018) MD 8 (1991–2026) MS 8 (1969–2017) WI 7 (1940–2023) LA 6 (1971–2024) NJ 6 (1951–2010) IN 6 (1980–2020) UT 6 (1951–2019) DE 5 (1966–1997) AL 4 (1975–1992) MN 4 (1984–2000) WV 4 (1932–2013) WA 4 (1899–1970) ID 4 (1959–2017) CO 4 (1998–2026) AZ 3 (1971–1994) MT 3 (1935–2002) RI 3 (1983–2010) KY 3 (1968–2012) NC 3 (1995–2010) OR 2 (2001–2019) NV 2 (1942–1985) AR 2 (1986–1998) ND 2 (1980–1994) NM 2 (1955–2025) WY 2 (1981–1981) DC 2 (1947–1995) HI 2 (1967–2002) ME 2 (1976–1978)

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