Oklahoma Supreme Court analysis in Oklahoma

2019Swift , ¶ 24 . ¶ 18 In reaching its conclusion that the manufacturer of the chemical did not owe a duty to the injured party, the Swift Court was guided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court's analysis in Duane v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. , 1992 OK 97 , 833 P.2d 284 .

2019Swift , ¶ 24 . ¶ 18 In reaching its conclusion that the manufacturer of the chemical did not owe a duty to the injured party, the Swift Court was guided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court's analysis in Duane v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. , 1992 OK 97 , 833 P.2d 284 .

2016Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals , 1978 OK 130, ¶ 1 , 595 P.2d 416, 417 .

2016Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals , 1978 OK 130, ¶ 1 , 595 P.2d 416, 417 .

2025These courts cite language in Barrios v. Haskell County Public Facilities Authority , 2018 OK 90 432 P.3d 233 ¶30 The Governmental Tort Claims Act on the subject of a legal immunity and immunity in other particular circumstances has been adjudicated by this Court in supervisory writ proceedings where first impression issues of law are presented with an urgent need for adjudication.

2025These courts cite language in Barrios v. Haskell County Public Facilities Authority , 2018 OK 90 432 P.3d 233 ¶30 The Governmental Tort Claims Act on the subject of a legal immunity and immunity in other particular circumstances has been adjudicated by this Court in supervisory writ proceedings where first impression issues of law are presented with an urgent need for adjudication. ¶31 Public policy in support of enforcing a 12 O.S. §2012 12 O.S. §2012 12 O.S. §2012 ¶32 Our analysis includes considering adequacy of remedies alternative to supervisory writs, ¶33 Not every statute is an expressi

2025These courts cite language in Barrios v. Haskell County Public Facilities Authority , 2018 OK 90 432 P.3d 233 ¶30 The Governmental Tort Claims Act on the subject of a legal immunity and immunity in other particular circumstances has been adjudicated by this Court in supervisory writ proceedings where first impression issues of law are presented with an urgent need for adjudication.

2025These courts cite language in Barrios v. Haskell County Public Facilities Authority , 2018 OK 90 432 P.3d 233 ¶30 The Governmental Tort Claims Act on the subject of a legal immunity and immunity in other particular circumstances has been adjudicated by this Court in supervisory writ proceedings where first impression issues of law are presented with an urgent need for adjudication. ¶31 Public policy in support of enforcing a 12 O.S. §2012 12 O.S. §2012 12 O.S. §2012 ¶32 Our analysis includes considering adequacy of remedies alternative to supervisory writs, ¶33 Not every statute is an expressi

2018The trial court agreed and stated that, in line with the Oklahoma Supreme Court's analysis in Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections , 2013 OK 43 , 305 P.3d 1004 , the version of SORA "which is applicable to a defendant is the version in effect at the time a defendant becomes subject to the act." The order states that "some offenders may become subject to the act upon conviction, [but] the statute as well as the ruling in Starkey make it clear that this is not always the case." The trial court concluded in its order that Mr. Graham did not become subject to SORA until his release and re

2018The trial court agreed and stated that, in line with the Oklahoma Supreme Court's analysis in Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections , 2013 OK 43 , 305 P.3d 1004 , the version of SORA "which is applicable to a defendant is the version in effect at the time a defendant becomes subject to the act." The order states that "some offenders may become subject to the act upon conviction, [but] the statute as well as the ruling in Starkey make it clear that this is not always the case." The trial court concluded in its order that Mr. Graham did not become subject to SORA until his release and re

2018Dep't of Corr. , 2013 OK 72, ¶ 15 , 349 P.3d 537 (The Starkey Court "held SORA and its numerous amendments when viewed in their entirety, have a punitive effect that outweighs their non-punitive purpose and therefore a retroactive application of SORA's registration provisions would violate the ex post facto clause in the Oklahoma Constitution." (footnote omitted)). ¶19 Although the Starkey Court was concerned with the retroactive application of SORA's registration provisions, pursuant to the analysis in Starkey and, in particular, the portions of the Starkey Opinion quoted above, we conclude a

2018Dep't of Corr. , 2013 OK 72, ¶ 15 , 349 P.3d 537 (The Starkey Court "held SORA and its numerous amendments when viewed in their entirety, have a punitive effect that outweighs their non-punitive purpose and therefore a retroactive application of SORA's registration provisions would violate the ex post facto clause in the Oklahoma Constitution." (footnote omitted)). ¶19 Although the Starkey Court was concerned with the retroactive application of SORA's registration provisions, pursuant to the analysis in Starkey and, in particular, the portions of the Starkey Opinion quoted above, we conclude a

2016Before the advent of mandatory seat belt laws, when the legal status of seat belts was similar to the current status of motorcycle helmets, the Supreme Court found, in Fields v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 1976 OK 106, ¶ 62 , 566 P.2d 48 , that “evidence of the failure to use seat belts is not admissible to establish a defense of contributory negligence or to be considered in mitigation of damages.

2006Corbett v. Express Personnel, 1997 OK 40, ¶ 7 , 936 P.2d 932, 934 (footnote omitted). ¶ 13 Petitioners’ defense to this claim is grounded upon the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s analysis of three categories of “injury-causing risk” in Odyssey/Americare of Oklahoma v. Worden, 1997 OK 136 , 948 P.2d 309 .

2006Corbett v. Express Personnel, 1997 OK 40, ¶ 7 , 936 P.2d 932, 934 (footnote omitted). ¶ 13 Petitioners’ defense to this claim is grounded upon the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s analysis of three categories of “injury-causing risk” in Odyssey/Americare of Oklahoma v. Worden, 1997 OK 136 , 948 P.2d 309 .

2005Reynolds, 1958 OK CR 73 at ¶ 5 , 328 P.2d at 444 . ¶ 15 The Trial Court here was persuaded by the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s analysis in Development Industries, upholding a City Council’s decision by a simple majority to amend a zoning ordinance despite the existence of an ordinance requiring a three-fourths majority.

2005Reynolds, 1958 OK CR 73 at ¶ 5 , 328 P.2d at 444 . ¶ 15 The Trial Court here was persuaded by the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s analysis in Development Industries, upholding a City Council’s decision by a simple majority to amend a zoning ordinance despite the existence of an ordinance requiring a three-fourths majority.

2001In North Side State Bank v. County Commissioners, 1994 OK 34 , 894 P.2d 1046 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court held immunity is based upon a person's status, e.g., judicial officer, legislator, prosecutor, or witness in judicial proceedings.

2001In North Side State Bank v. County Commissioners, 1994 OK 34 , 894 P.2d 1046 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court held immunity is based upon a person's status, e.g., judicial officer, legislator, prosecutor, or witness in judicial proceedings.

1996Baker, 638 P.2d at 468 . ¶ 18 The enactment of Section 31a of Article VI by the people in 1944, as noted above, was an amendment to Section 31 of that article.