modification rule in Oklahoma

2018Stewart , 2016 OK CR 9 , ¶¶ 17-18, 372 P.3d at 512 . ¶ 5 Given the apparent difficulty parties have in following the rule at issue here, I believe the purposes behind it may be better served by a modification of this doctrine.

2018Stewart , 2016 OK CR 9 , ¶¶ 17-18, 372 P.3d at 512 . ¶ 5 Given the apparent difficulty parties have in following the rule at issue here, I believe the purposes behind it may be better served by a modification of this doctrine.

2012It is not reasonably certain that the jury was misled and would bave rendered a different verdict nor that the giving of this instruction resulted in a miscarriage of justice or constituted "a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right." Taliaferro, 2006 OK 96 at ¶ 25 , 154 P.3d at 1248 ; 20 0.8.2011 $ 3001.1 III.

2012It is not reasonably certain that the jury was misled and would bave rendered a different verdict nor that the giving of this instruction resulted in a miscarriage of justice or constituted "a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right." Taliaferro, 2006 OK 96 at ¶ 25 , 154 P.3d at 1248 ; 20 0.8.2011 $ 3001.1 III.

2011Id., discussing Lay, 2008 OK CR 7 , 1 29, 179 P.3d at 623 .

2011Id., discussing Lay, 2008 OK CR 7, ¶ 29 , 179 P.3d at 623 .

2011Id., discussing Lay, 2008 OK CR 7, ¶ 29 , 179 P.3d at 623 .

2011Id., discussing Lay, 2008 OK CR 7, ¶ 29 , 179 P.3d at 623 .

2007Thus, we remanded the matter back to the trial court for a consideration of all relevant factors, including "the children's needs at the time of the modification, not at the time of the decree" to determine if "modification of the current amount of child support is warranted." 4 Kerby I, 2002 OK 91 at ¶ 11 , 60 P.3d at 1041 . *1051 T 6 After remand, Father moved for a protective order after Mother sought to discover evidence of the "current lifestyle of the Father and his children with his new wife." While Mother argued such information was necessary to determine what type of support the child

2007Thus, we remanded the matter back to the trial court for a consideration of all relevant factors, including "the children's needs at the time of the modification, not at the time of the decree" to determine if "modification of the current amount of child support is warranted." 4 Kerby I, 2002 OK 91 at ¶ 11 , 60 P.3d at 1041 . *1051 T 6 After remand, Father moved for a protective order after Mother sought to discover evidence of the "current lifestyle of the Father and his children with his new wife." While Mother argued such information was necessary to determine what type of support the child

1998In Johnson , we stated that the plain language of the jury instruction setting forth the possible punishment options may be modified to provide greater clarity. 928 P.2d at 320 : However, we specifically held such a modification in the instruction was not required.

1980We do not take this statement to be a modification of the rule that failure of the appellee to file a cross petition in error precludes review of alleged errors made against him, In re Lee’s Estate, 206 Okl. 275 , 243 P.2d 1013 (1952), that may demonstrate entitlement to affirmative relief.

1980We do not take this statement to be a modification of the rule that failure of the appellee to file a cross petition in error precludes review of alleged errors made against him, In re Lee’s Estate, 206 Okl. 275 , 243 P.2d 1013 (1952), that may demonstrate entitlement to affirmative relief.

1955As stated in White v. Morrow, 187 Okl. 72 , 100 P.2d 872 , and' numerous cases therein cited, where, as here, a confidential or fiduciary relationship exists between 'the parties, inadequacy of consideration is shown, and the circumstances.- -surrounding the transaction suggest fraud, mistake, duress, or undue influence, a presumption of fraud arises which must be overcome'’by the person asserting the validity of the written instrument in question.

1955As stated in White v. Morrow, 187 Okl. 72 , 100 P.2d 872 , and' numerous cases therein cited, where, as here, a confidential or fiduciary relationship exists between 'the parties, inadequacy of consideration is shown, and the circumstances.- -surrounding the transaction suggest fraud, mistake, duress, or undue influence, a presumption of fraud arises which must be overcome'’by the person asserting the validity of the written instrument in question.

1934Adair County Com'rs v. McCloud, 64 Okla. 126 , 166 P. 1065 , this court holds: "A county treasurer, who in good faith and without notice of any lack of responsibility in the bank, or defect in the bond, deposits his official funds in a duly designated county depository, which has given a bond, legally approved and accepted by the county commissioners, and which bond, by its terms is in force during the period of such deposit, is not liable for loss of funds, within the amount of said bond, occasioned by the failure of the depository" — which is a modification of the rule of absolute liability,

1934Adair County Com'rs v. McCloud, 64 Okla. 126 , 166 P. 1065 , this court holds: "A county treasurer, who in good faith and without notice of any lack of responsibility in the bank, or defect in the bond, deposits his official funds in a duly designated county depository, which has given a bond, legally approved and accepted by the county commissioners, and which bond, by its terms is in force during the period of such deposit, is not liable for loss of funds, within the amount of said bond, occasioned by the failure of the depository" — which is a modification of the rule of absolute liability,

1907This court settled this question adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error in the case of Colcord v. Conger, 10 Okla. 458 , 62 Pac. 276 , and there is nothing in this case that calls for a modification of the rule there stated.

1907This court settled this question adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error in the case of Colcord v. Conger, 10 Okla. 458 , 62 Pac. 276 , and there is nothing in this case that calls for a modification of the rule there stated.

1904In explanation, but not as a modification of this rule, it is said in Ryan v. U.S., 136 U.S. 68 ; "It is not essential that the description have such particulars and tokens of identification as to render a resort to extrinsic aid entirely needless, when the writing comes to be applied to the subject-matter.