given test in Oklahoma

1913For a full discussion of this question, see Coleman v. State, 6 Okla.

1913For a full discussion of this question see Coleman v. State, 6 Okla.

2006While Insurer here argues the need for individualized assessment of property loss and adjuster’s discretion in determining the propriety of payment of O' & P on a case-by-case basis, the insurance carrier in Melot similarly argued that its adjusters’ took into account all relevant “factors based upon the particular circumstances of a given claim” to determine whether a general contractor was required to coordinate repairs on a property loss. 27 In Melot , the COCA specifically not *102 ed “[ijnsurer asserts that determining whether damage adjustments were adequately calculated depends on indiv

2006While Insurer here argues the need for individualized assessment of property loss and adjuster’s discretion in determining the propriety of payment of O' & P on a case-by-case basis, the insurance carrier in Melot similarly argued that its adjusters’ took into account all relevant “factors based upon the particular circumstances of a given claim” to determine whether a general contractor was required to coordinate repairs on a property loss. 27 In Melot , the COCA specifically not *102 ed “[ijnsurer asserts that determining whether damage adjustments were adequately calculated depends on indiv

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts."); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts.”); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks if th

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts."); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts."); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts."); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts.”); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks if th

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts."); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts.”); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks if th

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts."); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts.”); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks if th

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts."); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts.”); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks if th

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts."); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks

1995See U.S. v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 797 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 104 , 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992) (concluding that rather than make initial determination that evidence is true, courts should submit otherwise admissible evidence to jury and let it "discharge its duties of weighing the evidence, making credibility determinations, and ultimately deciding the facts.”); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525 , 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (concluding that "[t]he issue of human error in the forensic laboratory is analyzed under ER 702 and is not a part of the Frye test which asks if th

1994In Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371 , 60 S.Ct. 317 , 84 L.Ed. 329 (1940), the Court held that a judgment based on a jurisdictional statute later found to be unconstitutional could have res judicata effect.

1994In Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371 , 60 S.Ct. 317 , 84 L.Ed. 329 (1940), the Court held that a judgment based on a jurisdictional statute later found to be unconstitutional could have res judicata effect.

1962If you find that the defendant entered the building under circumstances not amounting to any burglary, as instructed here, then you may find that the defendant is guilty of a misdemeanor on that charge; if you find that he entered with intent to commit any felony, larceny, or malicious mischief, then you may find him guilty of the reduced charge of misdemeanor.” Defendant would be correct in this assignment of error had the court not given instruction no. 5 which provided in part that: “However, unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that either the defendant, Jack Arthur Crawford, or one w

1962If you find that the defendant entered the building under circumstances not amounting to any burglary, as instructed here, then you may find that the defendant is guilty of a misdemeanor on that charge; if you find that he entered with intent to commit any felony, larceny, or malicious mischief, then you may find him guilty of the reduced charge of misdemeanor.” Defendant would be correct in this assignment of error had the court not given instruction no. 5 which provided in part that: “However, unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that either the defendant, Jack Arthur Crawford, or one w

1961In Holcomb v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 55 , 239 P.2d 806, 807 , in paragraph 2 of the syllabus, we said: “Where there is evidence introduced by the state and defendant on the issue of defendant’s character and trial court refuses to give a requested instruction on the issue of character, such refusal may constitute reversible error or not, according to all of the facts and circumstances in the case.

1961In Holcomb v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 55 , 239 P.2d 806, 807 , in paragraph 2 of the syllabus, we said: “Where there is evidence introduced by the state and defendant on the issue of defendant’s character and trial court refuses to give a requested instruction on the issue of character, such refusal may constitute reversible error or not, according to all of the facts and circumstances in the case.

1953The following statement from Drum Standish Commission Co. v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, 168 *142 Okl. 400, 31 P.2d 843, 850 , is peculiarly applicable to the matters urged here.

1953Also see Reinhart & Donovan Co. v. Williamson, 191 Okl. 539 , 131 P.2d 765 , announcing the test applicable for determining whether reversible error is present in connection with a given instruction.

1953Also see Reinhart & Donovan Co. v. Williamson, 191 Okl. 539 , 131 P.2d 765 , announcing the test applicable for determining whether reversible error is present in connection with a given instruction.

1944The rule to be observed here is stated in American-First National Bank, etc., v. Peterson, 169 Okla. 588 , 38 P. 2d 957 , as follows: “The question of whether a claim is barred by laches must be determined by the facts and circumstances in each case and according to right and justice.

1944The rule to be observed here is stated in American-First National Bank, etc., v. Peterson, 169 Okla. 588 , 38 P. 2d 957 , as follows: “The question of whether a claim is barred by laches must be determined by the facts and circumstances in each case and according to right and justice.

1933Both of plaintiff’s requested instructions numbered 5 and 11, in the form' requested, should have been refused, and the action of the trial court in refusing them is sustainable upon the authority of Friedman v. Weisz, 8 Okla. 392 , 58 P. 613 , wherein the syllabus is as follows: “It is not error to refuse to give an instruction which is long, verbose, and uncer tain as to its meaning, and which will tend io mislead and bewilder the jury.

1933Both of plaintiff’s requested instructions numbered 5 and 11, in the form' requested, should have been refused, and the action of the trial court in refusing them is sustainable upon the authority of Friedman v. Weisz, 8 Okla. 392 , 58 P. 613 , wherein the syllabus is as follows: “It is not error to refuse to give an instruction which is long, verbose, and uncer tain as to its meaning, and which will tend io mislead and bewilder the jury.

1908Sparks v. Territory, 16 Okla. 127 , 83 Pac. 712 ; Metz et al. v. Winne et al., 15 Okla. 1 , 79 Pac. 223 ; Glasser et al. v. Glasser et al., 13 Okla. 389 , 74 Pac. 944 .

1908Sparks v. Territory, 16 Okla. 127 , 83 Pac. 712 ; Metz et al. v. Winne et al., 15 Okla. 1 , 79 Pac. 223 ; Glasser et al. v. Glasser et al., 13 Okla. 389 , 74 Pac. 944 .

1908Sparks v. Territory, 16 Okla. 127 , 83 Pac. 712 ; Metz et al. v. Winne et al., 15 Okla. 1 , 79 Pac. 223 ; Glasser et al. v. Glasser et al., 13 Okla. 389 , 74 Pac. 944 .

1908Sparks v. Territory, 16 Okla. 127 , 83 Pac. 712 ; Metz et al. v. Winne et al., 15 Okla. 1 , 79 Pac. 223 ; Glasser et al. v. Glasser et al., 13 Okla. 389 , 74 Pac. 944 .

1908Sparks v. Territory, 16 Okla. 127 , 83 Pac. 712 ; Metz et al. v. Winne et al., 15 Okla. 1 , 79 Pac. 223 ; Glasser et al. v. Glasser et al., 13 Okla. 389 , 74 Pac. 944 .