existing rule (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

existing rule in Oklahoma

10 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2018 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 (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Lone Star Helicopters, Inc. v. Stategreen
okla · 1990 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–2014
2 sentences

2014Lone Star Helicopters, Inc., v. State , 1990 OK 111 , 800 P.2d 235, 237 (citing 75 O.S. § 252, which now states, in part, that " All courts, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, instrumentalities, and officers of the State of Oklahoma shall take judicial or official notice of any rule, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act."). 12 The record of facts before us fails to show a consistent and continual construction of the statute in a public manner by the Attorney General that is consistent with th

2014Lone Star Helicopters, Inc., v. State , 1990 OK 111 , 800 P.2d 235, 237 (citing 75 O.S. § 252, which now states, in part, that " All courts, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, instrumentalities, and officers of the State of Oklahoma shall take judicial or official notice of any rule, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act."). 12 The record of facts before us fails to show a consistent and continual construction of the statute in a public manner by the Attorney General that is consistent with th

34
Texas Oklahoma Express v. Sorensongreen
okla · 1982 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–2003
2 sentences

2003Cox v. Dawson, see note 17, supra; Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt, 1988 OK 20 , ¶12, 755 P.2d 626 ; Texas Oklahoma Express v. Sorenson, 1982 OK 113, ¶ 3 , 652 P.2d 285 . 19 .

2003Cox v. Dawson, see note 17, supra; Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt, 1988 OK 20 , ¶12, 755 P.2d 626 ; Texas Oklahoma Express v. Sorenson, 1982 OK 113, ¶ 3 , 652 P.2d 285 . 19 .

12
Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavittgreen
okla · 1988 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–2003
2 sentences

2003Cox v. Dawson, see note 17, supra; Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt, 1988 OK 20 , ¶12, 755 P.2d 626 ; Texas Oklahoma Express v. Sorenson, 1982 OK 113, ¶ 3 , 652 P.2d 285 . 19 .

1996Rules promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act are presumed to be valid until declared otherwise by a district court of this state or the Supreme Court...." [26] Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. Leavitt, 755 P.2d 626, 630 (Okla. 1988); Texas Oklahoma Express v. Sorenson, 652 P.2d 285, 287 (Okla. 1982). [27] Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission, 3 O.S. 1991 § 84; Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission, 3A O.S. 1991 § 201; Wildlife Conservation Commission, 29 O.S. 1991 § 3-101; State Board for Property & Casualty Rates, 36 O.S. 1991 § 331; Oklahoma Employment Security Co

12
Fawcett v. Oil Producers, Inc. of Kansasgreen
kan · 2015 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See 352 P.3d at 1033 (syllabus by the Court).

11
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, Chickasha, Oklahoma v. Nathgreen
okla · 1992 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001See, First Federal Savings & Loan v. Nath, 1992 OK 129, ¶ 11 , 839 P.2d 1336 ; Burdick v. Independent School Dist.

2001See, First Federal Savings & Loan v. Nath, 1992 OK 129, ¶ 11 , 839 P.2d 1336 ; Burdick v. Independent School Dist.

11
Adams v. Professional Practices Commissiongreen
okla · 1974 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
2 sentences

1984Adams v. Professional Practice Comm'n., 524 P.2d 932, 934 (Okla.1974); Cox, "The Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act: Fifteen Years of Interpretation”, 31 Okla.L.Rev. 886, 891 (1978). .

1984All courts, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, instrumentalities, and officers of the State of Oklahoma shall take judicial or official notice of any rule or regulation, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule or regulation duly filed, or duly filed and published under the provisions of this act." [10] Adams v. Professional Practice Comm'n., 524 P.2d 932, 934 (Okla. 1974); Cox, "The Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act: Fifteen Years of Interpretation", 31 Okla.L.Rev. 886, 891 (1978). [11] It is provided by 75 O.S. 1981 § 301(2) as follows: "(2) `Rule' means any agenc

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Butler v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission neutral
okla · 1994
2 sentences

2003All courts, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, instrumentalities, and officers of the State of Oklahoma, shall take judicial or official notice of any rule, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act ..." Davis v. GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., 2001 OK 3, ¶25 , 22 P.3d 1204 ; Cox v. Dawson, 1996 OK 11, ¶18 , 911 P.2d 272 ; Butler v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 1994 OK 50, ¶1 , 874 P.2d 1278 . 18 .

2003All courts, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, instrumentalities, and officers of the State of Oklahoma, shall take judicial or official notice of any rule, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act ..." Davis v. GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., 2001 OK 3, ¶25 , 22 P.3d 1204 ; Cox v. Dawson, 1996 OK 11, ¶18 , 911 P.2d 272 ; Butler v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 1994 OK 50, ¶1 , 874 P.2d 1278 . 18 .

31996–2003
Cox v. Dawson green
okla · 1996
2 sentences

2003All courts, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, instrumentalities, and officers of the State of Oklahoma, shall take judicial or official notice of any rule, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act ..." Davis v. GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., 2001 OK 3, ¶25 , 22 P.3d 1204 ; Cox v. Dawson, 1996 OK 11, ¶18 , 911 P.2d 272 ; Butler v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 1994 OK 50, ¶1 , 874 P.2d 1278 . 18 .

2003All courts, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, instrumentalities, and officers of the State of Oklahoma, shall take judicial or official notice of any rule, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act ..." Davis v. GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., 2001 OK 3, ¶25 , 22 P.3d 1204 ; Cox v. Dawson, 1996 OK 11, ¶18 , 911 P.2d 272 ; Butler v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 1994 OK 50, ¶1 , 874 P.2d 1278 . 18 .

22001–2003
Anson Corp. v. Hill green
okla · 1992
2 sentences

2003Anson Corp. v. Hill, 1992 OK 188 , 841 P.2d 583 . 1 20 The trial court was also correct that it was not necessary to address hypothetical constitutional problems which might result from allowing compulsory binding arbitration to go forward in the absence of an existing framework of rules governing the procedure and its review.

2003Anson Corp. v. Hill, 1992 OK 138 , 841 P.2d 583 ¶ 20 The trial court was also correct that it was not necessary to address hypothetical constitutional problems which might result from allowing compulsory binding arbitration to go forward in the absence of an existing framework of rules governing the procedure and its review.

12003–2003
Davis v. GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc. green
okla · 2001
2 sentences

2003All courts, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, instrumentalities, and officers of the State of Oklahoma, shall take judicial or official notice of any rule, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act ..." Davis v. GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., 2001 OK 3, ¶25 , 22 P.3d 1204 ; Cox v. Dawson, 1996 OK 11, ¶18 , 911 P.2d 272 ; Butler v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 1994 OK 50, ¶1 , 874 P.2d 1278 . 18 .

2003All courts, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, instrumentalities, and officers of the State of Oklahoma, shall take judicial or official notice of any rule, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act ..." Davis v. GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., 2001 OK 3, ¶25 , 22 P.3d 1204 ; Cox v. Dawson, 1996 OK 11, ¶18 , 911 P.2d 272 ; Butler v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 1994 OK 50, ¶1 , 874 P.2d 1278 . 18 .

12003–2003
Patterson Steel Company v. Smith green
okla · 1960
1 sentence

1974Patterson Steel Co. v. Smith (Okl.), 353 P.2d 126 , and cases cited.

11974–1974
Engmann v. Estate of Immel green
· 1884
2 sentences

1916Rep. 27 ) the sixth paragraph of the syllabus is as follows: “The word ‘continue,’ as used in' Civil Code Procedure, sec. 26, providing that a special proceeding pending may be continued from time to time before one or more of the judges of the court, means to keep up, to protract or extend in duration, to extend, or prolong.” In Engmann v. Estate of John Immel, Deceased, 59 Wis. 249 , 18 N. W. 182 , in defining the word “continue” under a statute providing that payment upon an existing claim shall be sufficient evidence upon a new or continuing contract, it was said: “The word ‘continuing,’ a

1916Rep. 27 ) the sixth paragraph of the syllabus is as follows: “The word ‘continue,’ as used in' Civil Code Procedure, sec. 26, providing that a special proceeding pending may be continued from time to time before one or more of the judges of the court, means to keep up, to protract or extend in duration, to extend, or prolong.” In Engmann v. Estate of John Immel, Deceased, 59 Wis. 249 , 18 N. W. 182 , in defining the word “continue” under a statute providing that payment upon an existing claim shall be sufficient evidence upon a new or continuing contract, it was said: “The word ‘continuing,’ a

11916–1916

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 252 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 115 (1934–2025) NY 76 (1881–2026) FL 70 (1910–2026) TX 52 (1922–2025) WA 46 (1901–2026) PA 44 (1897–2025) OH 41 (1943–2025) IL 38 (1897–2023) OR 34 (1939–2025) MI 33 (1884–2026) MD 32 (1913–2026) MO 27 (1902–2022) CO 23 (1981–2022) NJ 21 (1962–2024) IN 21 (1950–2017) CT 20 (1927–2026) AL 19 (1868–2025) IA 19 (1914–2026) TN 18 (1934–2018) UT 18 (1912–2026) WI 17 (1891–2024) HI 14 (1999–2025) GA 13 (1924–2023) NM 11 (1978–2022) VA 11 (1970–2020) ND 10 (1896–2012) OK 10 (1916–2018) MA 10 (1878–2016) NC 10 (1947–2025) MN 10 (1893–2017) KS 9 (1965–2009) WV 9 (1945–2009) ID 8 (1978–2018) AZ 7 (1976–2014) DC 7 (1976–2022) RI 6 (1984–2012) MS 5 (1992–2020) LA 4 (1988–2002) DE 4 (1980–2026) MT 4 (1980–2023) VT 4 (1997–2017) WY 4 (1979–2008) NH 4 (1967–2018) NV 4 (1947–2021) ME 4 (1979–2002) KY 4 (1925–2024) SD 4 (1996–2022) NE 3 (1928–2000) AK 3 (1995–2022) AR 3 (1926–2024) SC 2 (1986–2014)

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