de novo standard in Oklahoma

2021Auth. , 1993 OK 85 , 859 P.2d 1081, 1083 ("Issues of law are reviewable by a de novo standard and an appellate court claims for itself plenary independent and non-deferential authority to re-examine a trial court's legal rulings."); State ex rel.

2021Auth. , 1993 OK 85 , 859 P.2d 1081, 1083 ("Issues of law are reviewable by a de novo standard and an appellate court claims for itself plenary independent and non-deferential authority to re-examine a trial court's legal rulings."); State ex rel.

2023Fanning v. Brown , 2004 OK 7, ¶ 8 , 85 P.3d 841, 845 .

2023Fanning v. Brown , 2004 OK 7, ¶ 8 , 85 P.3d 841, 845 .

2008Weeks v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 171, ¶ 5 , 895 P.2d 731, 733 (approved for publication by the Oklahoma Supreme Court).

2008Weeks v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 171, ¶ 5 , 895 P.2d 731, 733 (approved for publication by the Oklahoma Supreme Court).

2020See also Christian v. Christian , 2018 OK 91 , ¶ 5, 434 P.3d 941, 942 ("when this Court is faced with a question of statutory interpretation, we apply a de novo standard of review"). 6 In re City of Durant , 2002 OK 52 , ¶ 2, 50 P.3d 218, 219-220 . 7 Laubenstein v. Bode Tower, L.L.C. , 2016 OK 118 , ¶ 9, 392 P.3d 706, 709 (In a case of equitable cognizance, a judgment will be sustained on appeal unless it is found to be against the clear weight of the evidence or is contrary to law or established principles of equity.), citing McGinnity v. Kirk , 2015 OK 73 , ¶ 8, 362 P.3d 186, 190 . 8 Som

2020See also Christian v. Christian , 2018 OK 91 , ¶ 5, 434 P.3d 941, 942 ("when this Court is faced with a question of statutory interpretation, we apply a de novo standard of review"). 6 In re City of Durant , 2002 OK 52 , ¶ 2, 50 P.3d 218, 219-220 . 7 Laubenstein v. Bode Tower, L.L.C. , 2016 OK 118 , ¶ 9, 392 P.3d 706, 709 (In a case of equitable cognizance, a judgment will be sustained on appeal unless it is found to be against the clear weight of the evidence or is contrary to law or established principles of equity.), citing McGinnity v. Kirk , 2015 OK 73 , ¶ 8, 362 P.3d 186, 190 . 8 Som

2020See also Christian v. Christian , 2018 OK 91 , ¶ 5, 434 P.3d 941, 942 ("when this Court is faced with a question of statutory interpretation, we apply a de novo standard of review"). 6 In re City of Durant , 2002 OK 52 , ¶ 2, 50 P.3d 218, 219-220 . 7 Laubenstein v. Bode Tower, L.L.C. , 2016 OK 118 , ¶ 9, 392 P.3d 706, 709 (In a case of equitable cognizance, a judgment will be sustained on appeal unless it is found to be against the clear weight of the evidence or is contrary to law or established principles of equity.), citing McGinnity v. Kirk , 2015 OK 73 , ¶ 8, 362 P.3d 186, 190 . 8 Som

2020See also Christian v. Christian , 2018 OK 91 , ¶ 5, 434 P.3d 941, 942 ("when this Court is faced with a question of statutory interpretation, we apply a de novo standard of review"). 6 In re City of Durant , 2002 OK 52 , ¶ 2, 50 P.3d 218, 219-220 . 7 Laubenstein v. Bode Tower, L.L.C. , 2016 OK 118 , ¶ 9, 392 P.3d 706, 709 (In a case of equitable cognizance, a judgment will be sustained on appeal unless it is found to be against the clear weight of the evidence or is contrary to law or established principles of equity.), citing McGinnity v. Kirk , 2015 OK 73 , ¶ 8, 362 P.3d 186, 190 . 8 Som

2022Licensure and Supervision v. Rivero , 2021 OK 31 , ¶ 42, 489 P.3d 36, 53 ("The interpretation to be given to a statute is a question of law, subject to our plenary, independent and non-deferential examination applying a de novo standard of review."). 20 In re Oneok Field Services Gathering , LLC, 2001 OK 116 , ¶ 7, 38 P.3d 900, 903 ("Because the meaning of statutory language is a pure issue of law and because the trial court's disposition was effected by summary judgment, the issue stands before us for de novo review."); see also K & H Well Serv., Inc. v. Tcina, Inc. , 2002 OK 62 , ¶ 9, 51

2022Licensure and Supervision v. Rivero , 2021 OK 31 , ¶ 42, 489 P.3d 36, 53 ("The interpretation to be given to a statute is a question of law, subject to our plenary, independent and non-deferential examination applying a de novo standard of review."). 20 In re Oneok Field Services Gathering , LLC, 2001 OK 116 , ¶ 7, 38 P.3d 900, 903 ("Because the meaning of statutory language is a pure issue of law and because the trial court's disposition was effected by summary judgment, the issue stands before us for de novo review."); see also K & H Well Serv., Inc. v. Tcina, Inc. , 2002 OK 62 , ¶ 9, 51

2024Under the de novo standard of appellate review, this Court is vested with "plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the issues presented." Harmon v. Cradduck , 2012 OK 80, ¶ 10, 286 P.3d 643, 648.

2024Under the de novo standard of appellate review, this Court is vested with "plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the issues presented." Harmon v. Cradduck , 2012 OK 80, ¶ 10, 286 P.3d 643, 648.

2016Sch. v. Priddy, 2014 OK 30 , ¶ 8, 328 P.3d 1190 (citation omitted).

2016Sch. v. Priddy, 2014 OK 30 , ¶ 8, 328 P.3d 1190 (citation omitted).

2005Under the de novo standard, we have “plenary, independent and non-deferential” authority to examine a trial court’s legal rulings.” Jackson, 2002 OK 25, ¶2 , 45 P.3d at 422 . *865 Y.

2005Under the de novo standard, we have “plenary, independent and non-deferential” authority to examine a trial court’s legal rulings.” Jackson, 2002 OK 25, ¶2 , 45 P.3d at 422 . *865 Y.

2021Peoplelink, 2014 OK 65 , ¶ 7, 373 P.3d at 1021 . ¶13 We review questions of law under a de novo standard, which is plenary, independent, and non-deferential.

2021Peoplelink, 2014 OK 65 , ¶ 7, 373 P.3d at 1021 . ¶13 We review questions of law under a de novo standard, which is plenary, independent, and non-deferential.

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶5 "A determination of the existence of a valid enforceable agreement to arbitrate is a question of law to be reviewed by a de novo standard." Signature Leasing, LLC v. Buyer's Grp., LLC , 2020 OK 50 466 P.3d 544 de novo review [is] proper." Signature Leasing , ¶ 2, 466 P.3d at 545 (citation omitted).

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶5 "A determination of the existence of a valid enforceable agreement to arbitrate is a question of law to be reviewed by a de novo standard." Signature Leasing, LLC v. Buyer's Grp., LLC , 2020 OK 50 466 P.3d 544 de novo review [is] proper." Signature Leasing , ¶ 2, 466 P.3d at 545 (citation omitted).

2021Co. , 2001 OK 113 , ¶ 1, 41 P.3d 366, 367 , and explaining that although an order was reviewed for abuse of discretion, " de novo standard applies to issue of whether the court applied the correct legal standard."). 29 Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp. , 2006 OK 47 , ¶ 16, 139 P.3d 897, 903 . 30 Fields v. Saunders , 2012 OK 17 , ¶ 1, 278 P.3d 577, 579 ; see , e.g. , In re A.M. & R.W. , 2000 OK 82 , ¶ 6, 13 P.3d 484 , 486-87 ("In passing upon a claim that the procedure used in a proceeding to terminate parental rights resulted in a denial of procedural due process, we review the issue de

2021Co. , 2001 OK 113 , ¶ 1, 41 P.3d 366, 367 , and explaining that although an order was reviewed for abuse of discretion, " de novo standard applies to issue of whether the court applied the correct legal standard."). 29 Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp. , 2006 OK 47 , ¶ 16, 139 P.3d 897, 903 . 30 Fields v. Saunders , 2012 OK 17 , ¶ 1, 278 P.3d 577, 579 ; see , e.g. , In re A.M. & R.W. , 2000 OK 82 , ¶ 6, 13 P.3d 484 , 486-87 ("In passing upon a claim that the procedure used in a proceeding to terminate parental rights resulted in a denial of procedural due process, we review the issue de

2018An order granting summary judgment disposes of issues that are "purely legal" and is subject to the de novo standard of appellate review. *1284 Carmichael v. Beller , 1996 OK 48 , ¶ 2, 914 P.2d 1051 .

2018An order granting summary judgment disposes of issues that are "purely legal" and is subject to the de novo standard of appellate review. *1284 Carmichael v. Beller , 1996 OK 48 , ¶ 2, 914 P.2d 1051 .

2022Section 301 states: "This act shall be known as the Open Meeting Act." 3 Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (OAPA), 75 O.S. 2011 §§ 250-323 (as amended). 4 A trial judge is not required to hold a District Court Rule 5 pretrial conference "in cases where jury has been waived but he [or she] may do so." 12 O.S.2011, Ch. 2, App. Rule 5 (A) (Rules for District Courts). 5 Defendants' motion for summary judgment, 08/01/2019, at p.18; Defendants' Brief In Chief on appeal, 06/24/2020, at p. 17. 6 Evidentiary Hearing Trial Brief and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 10/31/2019, O.R. at 304,

2022Section 301 states: "This act shall be known as the Open Meeting Act." 3 Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (OAPA), 75 O.S. 2011 §§ 250-323 (as amended). 4 A trial judge is not required to hold a District Court Rule 5 pretrial conference "in cases where jury has been waived but he [or she] may do so." 12 O.S.2011, Ch. 2, App. Rule 5 (A) (Rules for District Courts). 5 Defendants' motion for summary judgment, 08/01/2019, at p.18; Defendants' Brief In Chief on appeal, 06/24/2020, at p. 17. 6 Evidentiary Hearing Trial Brief and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 10/31/2019, O.R. at 304,

2019In re Estate of Jackson , 2008 OK 83, ¶ 9, 194 P.3d 1269.

2019In re Estate of Jackson , 2008 OK 83 , ¶ 9, 194 P.3d 1269 .

2016In re Reinstatement of Blevins, 2002 OK 78, ¶ 3 , 59 P.3d 510, 511 .

2016In re Reinstatement of Blevins, 2002 OK 78, ¶ 3 , 59 P.3d 510, 511 .

2022Section 301 states: "This act shall be known as the Open Meeting Act." 3 Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (OAPA), 75 O.S. 2011 §§ 250-323 (as amended). 4 A trial judge is not required to hold a District Court Rule 5 pretrial conference "in cases where jury has been waived but he [or she] may do so." 12 O.S.2011, Ch. 2, App. Rule 5 (A) (Rules for District Courts). 5 Defendants' motion for summary judgment, 08/01/2019, at p.18; Defendants' Brief In Chief on appeal, 06/24/2020, at p. 17. 6 Evidentiary Hearing Trial Brief and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 10/31/2019, O.R. at 304,

2022Section 301 states: "This act shall be known as the Open Meeting Act." 3 Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (OAPA), 75 O.S. 2011 §§ 250-323 (as amended). 4 A trial judge is not required to hold a District Court Rule 5 pretrial conference "in cases where jury has been waived but he [or she] may do so." 12 O.S.2011, Ch. 2, App. Rule 5 (A) (Rules for District Courts). 5 Defendants' motion for summary judgment, 08/01/2019, at p.18; Defendants' Brief In Chief on appeal, 06/24/2020, at p. 17. 6 Evidentiary Hearing Trial Brief and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 10/31/2019, O.R. at 304,

2025Oklahoma Oncology & Hematology, P.C. v. U.S. Oncology, Inc. , 2007 OK 12 160 P.3d 936 Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp. , 2005 OK 51 138 P.3d 826 De novo review of the record involves a plenary, independent and non-deferential examination of the district court's legal rulings.

2007The Standard of Review ¶19 The question as to the existence of valid enforceable agreements to arbitrate all of CCA's claims in this case against AOR-OK and USON is a question of law to be reviewed by a de novo standard, Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 OK 51, ¶18 , 138 P.3d 826, 831 , without deference to the lower court.

2002The separate writing of the qualifiedly concurring justice would adopt as a common-law norm the very same public policy the court divines today from clearly expressed legislative will. [40] Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79, ¶ 22 , 989 P.2d 448, 455-56 . [41] Russell v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 1997 OK 80, ¶ 7 , 952 P.2d 492, 497 ; Gray v. Holman, 1995 OK 118, ¶ 11 , 909 P.2d 776, 781 . [42] Mahan v. NTC of America, 1992 OK 8, ¶ 2 , 832 P.2d 805, 808 (Opala, C.J., concurring) ("The de novo standard of review is utterly nondeferential because it ascribes absolutely no weight to a lower tribunal's findi

2002The separate writing of the qualifiedly concurring justice would adopt as a common-law norm the very same public policy the court divines today from clearly expressed legislative will. [40] Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79, ¶ 22 , 989 P.2d 448, 455-56 . [41] Russell v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 1997 OK 80, ¶ 7 , 952 P.2d 492, 497 ; Gray v. Holman, 1995 OK 118, ¶ 11 , 909 P.2d 776, 781 . [42] Mahan v. NTC of America, 1992 OK 8, ¶ 2 , 832 P.2d 805, 808 (Opala, C.J., concurring) ("The de novo standard of review is utterly nondeferential because it ascribes absolutely no weight to a lower tribunal's findi

2018This Court conducts a review of PRT findings by "exercis[ing] independently its original jurisdiction and appl[ying] a de novo standard of review." In Re Reinstatement of Hird , 2008 OK 25 , ¶ 3, 184 P.3d 535, 537 .

2018This Court conducts a review of PRT findings by "exercis[ing] independently its original jurisdiction and appl[ying] a de novo standard of review." In Re Reinstatement of Hird , 2008 OK 25 , ¶ 3, 184 P.3d 535, 537 .

2014In re W.A., 2004 OK CIV APP 50 , ¶ 4, 91 P.3d 682 , 683.

2014In re W.A., 2004 OK CIV APP 50 , ¶ 4, 91 P.3d 682 , 683.