condition test in Oklahoma

1993Dept. of Public Safety v. Lance, 542 P.2d 506 (Okla.1975) (arrested party qualified his consent upon the condition that the test be administered by a physician of his choosing); Phares v. Dept. of Public Safety, 507 P.2d 1225 (Okla.1973) (arrested party refused to submit to the test before consulting with counsel). .

1993Dept. of Public Safety v. Lance, 542 P.2d 506 (Okla. 1975) (arrested party qualified his consent upon the condition that the test be administered by a physician of his choosing); Phares v. Dept. of Public Safety, 507 P.2d 1225 (Okla. 1973) (arrested party refused to submit to the test before consulting with counsel). [5] Lively v. State, 804 P.2d 66, 70 (Alaska App. 1991), and Matter of Smith, 115 Idaho 808 , 770 P.2d 817, 821 (Ct.App. 1989). [6] Matter of Smith, 770 P.2d at 820 . [7] Matter of Smith, 770 P.2d at 821 . [8] Wisch v. Jensen, 221 Neb. 609 , 379 N.W.2d 755, 756 (1986). [9] The Cou

1993Dept. of Public Safety v. Lance, 542 P.2d 506 (Okla.1975) (arrested party qualified his consent upon the condition that the test be administered by a physician of his choosing); Phares v. Dept. of Public Safety, 507 P.2d 1225 (Okla.1973) (arrested party refused to submit to the test before consulting with counsel). .

1993Dept. of Public Safety v. Lance, 542 P.2d 506 (Okla. 1975) (arrested party qualified his consent upon the condition that the test be administered by a physician of his choosing); Phares v. Dept. of Public Safety, 507 P.2d 1225 (Okla. 1973) (arrested party refused to submit to the test before consulting with counsel). [5] Lively v. State, 804 P.2d 66, 70 (Alaska App. 1991), and Matter of Smith, 115 Idaho 808 , 770 P.2d 817, 821 (Ct.App. 1989). [6] Matter of Smith, 770 P.2d at 820 . [7] Matter of Smith, 770 P.2d at 821 . [8] Wisch v. Jensen, 221 Neb. 609 , 379 N.W.2d 755, 756 (1986). [9] The Cou

1993Dept. of Public Safety v. Lance, 542 P.2d 506 (Okla. 1975) (arrested party qualified his consent upon the condition that the test be administered by a physician of his choosing); Phares v. Dept. of Public Safety, 507 P.2d 1225 (Okla. 1973) (arrested party refused to submit to the test before consulting with counsel). [5] Lively v. State, 804 P.2d 66, 70 (Alaska App. 1991), and Matter of Smith, 115 Idaho 808 , 770 P.2d 817, 821 (Ct.App. 1989). [6] Matter of Smith, 770 P.2d at 820 . [7] Matter of Smith, 770 P.2d at 821 . [8] Wisch v. Jensen, 221 Neb. 609 , 379 N.W.2d 755, 756 (1986). [9] The Cou

1990The Court of Appeals ruled the five year statute of limitation “does not begin to run for the type of extraordinary, latent condition as involved here, until the Claimant knows or as a reasonably prudent person should know, that he has the condition for which the claim is brought and that the condition stems from a job-related injury.” It formulated a discovery rule for cases of this type ostensibly relying on the discovery rule found in certain tort cases such as Seitz v. Jones, 370 P.2d 300 (Okl.1961) (medical malpractice concerning leaving a foreign object in a patient during surgery) and S

1990The Court of Appeals ruled the five year statute of limitation "does not begin to run for the type of extraordinary, latent condition as involved here, until the Claimant knows or as a reasonably prudent person should know, that he has the condition for which the claim is brought and that the condition stems from a job-related injury." It formulated a discovery rule for cases of this type ostensibly relying on the discovery rule found in certain tort cases such as Seitz v. Jones, 370 P.2d 300 (Okl. 1961) (medical malpractice concerning leaving a foreign object in a patient during surgery) and

1990The Court of Appeals ruled the five year statute of limitation “does not begin to run for the type of extraordinary, latent condition as involved here, until the Claimant knows or as a reasonably prudent person should know, that he has the condition for which the claim is brought and that the condition stems from a job-related injury.” It formulated a discovery rule for cases of this type ostensibly relying on the discovery rule found in certain tort cases such as Seitz v. Jones, 370 P.2d 300 (Okl.1961) (medical malpractice concerning leaving a foreign object in a patient during surgery) and S

1990The Court of Appeals ruled the five year statute of limitation "does not begin to run for the type of extraordinary, latent condition as involved here, until the Claimant knows or as a reasonably prudent person should know, that he has the condition for which the claim is brought and that the condition stems from a job-related injury." It formulated a discovery rule for cases of this type ostensibly relying on the discovery rule found in certain tort cases such as Seitz v. Jones, 370 P.2d 300 (Okl. 1961) (medical malpractice concerning leaving a foreign object in a patient during surgery) and

1989Under those circumstances, the court ruled that “a party to a contract may not prevent performance of a condition and then claim the benefit of such condition” and that where the conduct of a party to a contract prevents or dispenses performance by the adverse party, the party waives the right to require performance. 541 P.2d at 1375 .

1975Seal v. Carroll, Okl., 439 P.2d 185 (1968); Chilton v. Oklahoma Tire & Supply Co., 180 Okl. 39 , 67 P.2d 27 (1937).

1975Seal v. Carroll, Okl., 439 P.2d 185 (1968); Chilton v. Oklahoma Tire & Supply Co., 180 Okl. 39 , 67 P.2d 27 (1937).

1975Seal v. Carroll, Okl., 439 P.2d 185 (1968); Chilton v. Oklahoma Tire & Supply Co., 180 Okl. 39 , 67 P.2d 27 (1937).

1930Freeman v. Champion, 92 Okla. 282 , 219 Pac. 90 ; Parrish v. School District No. 19, 68 Okla. 42 , *40 171 Pac. 461 , is applicable, and tbe appeal is dismissed.

1930Freeman v. Champion, 92 Okla. 282 , 219 Pac. 90 ; Parrish v. School District No. 19, 68 Okla. 42 , *40 171 Pac. 461 , is applicable, and tbe appeal is dismissed.

1930Under this condition the rule of law announced in the cases of Thompson v. Board of Com’rs, Delaware Co., 56 Okla. 79 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Delaware County v. Board of Com’rs., 56 Okla. 81 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 32 , 206 Pac. 200 ; Arinwine v. Sawner, 112 Okla. 252 , 240 Pac. 1042 ; Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20 , 275 Pac. 1064 ; State ex rel.

1930Under this condition the rule of law announced in the cases of Thompson v. Board of Com’rs, Delaware Co., 56 Okla. 79 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Delaware County v. Board of Com’rs., 56 Okla. 81 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 32 , 206 Pac. 200 ; Arinwine v. Sawner, 112 Okla. 252 , 240 Pac. 1042 ; Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20 , 275 Pac. 1064 ; State ex rel.

1930Under this condition the rule of law announced in the cases of Thompson v. Board of Com’rs, Delaware Co., 56 Okla. 79 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Delaware County v. Board of Com’rs., 56 Okla. 81 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 32 , 206 Pac. 200 ; Arinwine v. Sawner, 112 Okla. 252 , 240 Pac. 1042 ; Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20 , 275 Pac. 1064 ; State ex rel.

1930Under this condition the rule of law announced in the cases of Thompson v. Board of Com’rs, Delaware Co., 56 Okla. 79 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Delaware County v. Board of Com’rs., 56 Okla. 81 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 32 , 206 Pac. 200 ; Arinwine v. Sawner, 112 Okla. 252 , 240 Pac. 1042 ; Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20 , 275 Pac. 1064 ; State ex rel.

1930Freeman v. Champion, 92 Okla. 282 , 219 Pac. 90 ; Parrish v. School District No. 19, 68 Okla. 42 , *40 171 Pac. 461 , is applicable, and tbe appeal is dismissed.

1930Under this condition the rule of law announced in the cases of Thompson v. Board of Com’rs, Delaware Co., 56 Okla. 79 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Delaware County v. Board of Com’rs., 56 Okla. 81 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 32 , 206 Pac. 200 ; Arinwine v. Sawner, 112 Okla. 252 , 240 Pac. 1042 ; Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20 , 275 Pac. 1064 ; State ex rel.

1930Under this condition the rule of law announced in the cases of Thompson v. Board of Com’rs, Delaware Co., 56 Okla. 79 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Delaware County v. Board of Com’rs., 56 Okla. 81 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 32 , 206 Pac. 200 ; Arinwine v. Sawner, 112 Okla. 252 , 240 Pac. 1042 ; Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20 , 275 Pac. 1064 ; State ex rel.

1930Under this condition the rule of law announced in the cases of Thompson v. Board of Com’rs, Delaware Co., 56 Okla. 79 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Delaware County v. Board of Com’rs., 56 Okla. 81 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 32 , 206 Pac. 200 ; Arinwine v. Sawner, 112 Okla. 252 , 240 Pac. 1042 ; Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20 , 275 Pac. 1064 ; State ex rel.

1930Under this condition the rule of law announced in the cases of Thompson v. Board of Com’rs, Delaware Co., 56 Okla. 79 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Delaware County v. Board of Com’rs., 56 Okla. 81 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 32 , 206 Pac. 200 ; Arinwine v. Sawner, 112 Okla. 252 , 240 Pac. 1042 ; Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20 , 275 Pac. 1064 ; State ex rel.

1930Under this condition the rule of law announced in the cases of Thompson v. Board of Com’rs, Delaware Co., 56 Okla. 79 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Delaware County v. Board of Com’rs., 56 Okla. 81 , 155 Pac. 881 ; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 32 , 206 Pac. 200 ; Arinwine v. Sawner, 112 Okla. 252 , 240 Pac. 1042 ; Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20 , 275 Pac. 1064 ; State ex rel.

1930Freeman v. Champion, 92 Okla. 282 , 219 Pac. 90 ; Parrish v. School District No. 19, 68 Okla. 42 , *40 171 Pac. 461 , is applicable, and tbe appeal is dismissed.

1914The condition of the framework of the structure, the number of beams and joists, and the purpose for which they were put in, and the support they were intended to give, and the weight they were intended to bear, and uses for which they were put in were so complicated that it would have been extremely difficult, if not wholly impossible, for the jury to understand just what the facts were without some explanation by parties who knew, and the case does not fall within the rule announced in Hicks v. Davis, 32 Okla. 195 , 120 Pac. 260 , for in that case the facts were so plain and simple, and all

1914The condition of the framework of the structure, the number of beams and joists, and the purpose for which they were put in, and the support they were intended to give, and the weight they were intended to bear, and uses for which they were put in were so complicated that it would have been extremely difficult, if not wholly impossible, for the jury to understand just what the facts were without some explanation by parties who knew, and the case does not fall within the rule announced in Hicks v. Davis, 32 Okla. 195 , 120 Pac. 260 , for in that case the facts were so plain and simple, and all

1911Under this condition the rule is well stated in Pemberton v. Dooley, 43 Mo. 176 , thus: “It is * * * well settled that the owner of the soil on the two sides of the ordinary country road is the owner likewise of the soil in the road, subject only to the right of the public use as a road.