extension rule in Oklahoma

2001The use of the Brigance doctrine to pierce the corporate veil constitutes an extension of that doctrine when extension has been rejected in cases, like Sanders , where a clearer reason to affix responsibility to a particular party exists. ¶ 34 Moreover, in cases such as Thomas v. Vertigo, Inc., 1995 OK CIV APP 45 , 900 P.2d 458 , the Court there determined that the corporate shield was employed to circumvent a statutory duty to maintain workers' compensation.

2001The use of the Brigance doe-trine to pierce the corporate veil constitutes an extension of that doctrine when extension has been rejected in cases, like Sanders, where a clearer reason to affix responsibility to a particular party exists. 1 34 Moreover, in cases such as Thomas v. Vertigo, Inc., 1995 OK CIV APP 45 , 900 P.2d 458 , the Court there determined that the corporate shield was employed to cireumvent a statutory duty to maintain workers' compensation.

1994Co., 336 Mo. 184 , 78 S.W.2d 404 (1934) (privilege included a church hearing and trial). [15] The statute was amended to delete a portion of the statute which stated certain instances in which malice of the publisher could be presumed.

1994Co., 336 Mo. 184 , 78 S.W.2d 404 (1934) (privilege included a church hearing and trial). [15] The statute was amended to delete a portion of the statute which stated certain instances in which malice of the publisher could be presumed.

1994Newell v. Field Enterprises, Inc., 91 Ill.

1994Newell v. Field Enterprises, Inc., 91 Ill.App.3d 735 , 47 Ill.Dec. 429 , 415 N.E.2d 434 (1st Dist.1980). .

1994Abell Co., 131 F. Supp. 617 (D.Md. 1955) (Maryland law permitted the extension of the privilege to a political campaign speech); Warren v. Pulitzer Publ.

1994Abell Co., 131 F.Supp. 617 (D.Md.1955) (Maryland law permitted the extension of the privilege to a political campaign speech); Warren v. Pulitzer Publ.

1972Landsdown v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 348 F.2d 405 . * * * A simple admonition by the officers that the search could not and would not be conducted without Perkins’ consent would have sufficed.” On the other hand, however, we find the following language in Government of the Virgin Islands v. Berne, Appellant, United States Court of Appeals, 3rd Cir., 412 F.2d 1055 (1969): “It is appellant’s contention that since his oral consent to the search and seizure was given without prior Miranda warnings, the communicative assent cannot be valid. “ * * * “Thus, there is logical and rational support f

1972Landsdown v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 348 F.2d 405 . * * * A simple admonition by the officers that the search could not and would not be conducted without Perkins’ consent would have sufficed.” On the other hand, however, we find the following language in Government of the Virgin Islands v. Berne, Appellant, United States Court of Appeals, 3rd Cir., 412 F.2d 1055 (1969): “It is appellant’s contention that since his oral consent to the search and seizure was given without prior Miranda warnings, the communicative assent cannot be valid. “ * * * “Thus, there is logical and rational support f

1972In the absence of such an extension of the rule in Miranda by the Supreme Court, this court shall continue to adhere to the rule that in order for a search with consent to be reasonable the consent must be voluntary, and that the question of whether the consent was freely and intelligently given is to be determined according to the circumstances in each case.” The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in Perkins v. Henderson, Warden, 418 F.2d 441 (1969), in passing upon the issue of a valid consent to search, used the following language: “The question whether there has been a consent

1958Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Kendall, 96 Okl. 194 , 221 P. 762 .

1958Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Kendall, 96 Okl. 194 , 221 P. 762 .

1952The extension of that rule, however, to preclude a review of an alleged excessive verdict, in the absence of a motion for a directed verdict, is, in our opinion, unwarranted, and Picow v. Winters, 189 Okla. 45 , 113 P. 2d 393 , and Saunders v. McKee, 177 Okla. 357 , 58 P. 2d 1234 , in so far as they so hold, are hereby overruled.

1952The extension of that rule, however, to preclude a review of an alleged excessive verdict, in the absence of a motion for a directed verdict, is, in our opinion, unwarranted, and Picow v. Winters, 189 Okla. 45 , 113 P. 2d 393 , and Saunders v. McKee, 177 Okla. 357 , 58 P. 2d 1234 , in so far as they so hold, are hereby overruled.

1952The extension of that rule, however, to preclude a review of an alleged excessive verdict, in the absence of a motion for a directed verdict, is, in our opinion, unwarranted, and Picow v. Winters, 189 Okla. 45 , 113 P. 2d 393 , and Saunders v. McKee, 177 Okla. 357 , 58 P. 2d 1234 , in so far as they so hold, are hereby overruled.

1952The extension of that rule, however, to preclude a review of an alleged excessive verdict, in the absence of a motion for a directed verdict, is, in our opinion, unwarranted, and Picow v. Winters, 189 Okla. 45 , 113 P. 2d 393 , and Saunders v. McKee, 177 Okla. 357 , 58 P. 2d 1234 , in so far as they so hold, are hereby overruled.

1939Telle v. Carter, 170 Okla. 50 , 39 P.2d 134 ; Battles v. Childers, 177 Okla. 589 , 61 P.2d 253 , and Edwards v. Carter, State Auditor, 167 Okla. 287 , 29 P.2d 610 , are incorrect and are too great an extension of the rule announced in the case of Riley v. Carter, 165 Okla. 262 , 25 P.2d 666 .

1939Telle v. Carter, 170 Okla. 50 , 39 P.2d 134 ; Battles v. Childers, 177 Okla. 589 , 61 P.2d 253 , and Edwards v. Carter, State Auditor, 167 Okla. 287 , 29 P.2d 610 , are incorrect and are too great an extension of the rule announced in the case of Riley v. Carter, 165 Okla. 262 , 25 P.2d 666 .

1939Telle v. Carter, 170 Okla. 50 , 39 P.2d 134 ; Battles v. Childers, 177 Okla. 589 , 61 P.2d 253 , and Edwards v. Carter, State Auditor, 167 Okla. 287 , 29 P.2d 610 , are incorrect and are too great an extension of the rule announced in the case of Riley v. Carter, 165 Okla. 262 , 25 P.2d 666 .

1939Telle v. Carter, 170 Okla. 50 , 39 P.2d 134 ; Battles v. Childers, 177 Okla. 589 , 61 P.2d 253 , and Edwards v. Carter, State Auditor, 167 Okla. 287 , 29 P.2d 610 , are incorrect and are too great an extension of the rule announced in the case of Riley v. Carter, 165 Okla. 262 , 25 P.2d 666 .

1939Telle v. Carter, 170 Okla. 50 , 39 P.2d 134 ; Battles v. Childers, 177 Okla. 589 , 61 P.2d 253 , and Edwards v. Carter, State Auditor, 167 Okla. 287 , 29 P.2d 610 , are incorrect and are too great an extension of the rule announced in the case of Riley v. Carter, 165 Okla. 262 , 25 P.2d 666 .

1939Telle v. Carter, 170 Okla. 50 , 39 P.2d 134 ; Battles v. Childers, 177 Okla. 589 , 61 P.2d 253 , and Edwards v. Carter, State Auditor, 167 Okla. 287 , 29 P.2d 610 , are incorrect and are too great an extension of the rule announced in the case of Riley v. Carter, 165 Okla. 262 , 25 P.2d 666 .

1939Telle v. Carter, 170 Okla. 50 , 39 P.2d 134 ; Battles v. Childers, 177 Okla. 589 , 61 P.2d 253 , and Edwards v. Carter, State Auditor, 167 Okla. 287 , 29 P.2d 610 , are incorrect and are too great an extension of the rule announced in the case of Riley v. Carter, 165 Okla. 262 , 25 P.2d 666 .

1939Telle v. Carter, 170 Okla. 50 , 39 P.2d 134 ; Battles v. Childers, 177 Okla. 589 , 61 P.2d 253 , and Edwards v. Carter, State Auditor, 167 Okla. 287 , 29 P.2d 610 , are incorrect and are too great an extension of the rule announced in the case of Riley v. Carter, 165 Okla. 262 , 25 P.2d 666 .

1928“A party cannot try his case in the trial court on one theory, and then ask a reversal of the judgment in this court on a theory not presented to the trial court or raised by the pleadings.” Bouton v. Carson, 51 Okla. 579 , 152 Pac. 131 ; Wallace v. Blassingame, 53 Okla. 198 , 155 Pac. 1143 ; Primous v. Wertz, 65 Okla. 7 , 162 Pac. 481 ; Board of Commissioners of Pottawatomie County v. Henderson, 66 Okla. 282 , 168 Pac. 1007 ; Edwards v. Phillips, 70 Okla. 9 , 172 Pac. 946 .

1928“A party cannot try his case in the trial court on one theory, and then ask a reversal of the judgment in this court on a theory not presented to the trial court or raised by the pleadings.” Bouton v. Carson, 51 Okla. 579 , 152 Pac. 131 ; Wallace v. Blassingame, 53 Okla. 198 , 155 Pac. 1143 ; Primous v. Wertz, 65 Okla. 7 , 162 Pac. 481 ; Board of Commissioners of Pottawatomie County v. Henderson, 66 Okla. 282 , 168 Pac. 1007 ; Edwards v. Phillips, 70 Okla. 9 , 172 Pac. 946 .

1928“A party cannot try his case in the trial court on one theory, and then ask a reversal of the judgment in this court on a theory not presented to the trial court or raised by the pleadings.” Bouton v. Carson, 51 Okla. 579 , 152 Pac. 131 ; Wallace v. Blassingame, 53 Okla. 198 , 155 Pac. 1143 ; Primous v. Wertz, 65 Okla. 7 , 162 Pac. 481 ; Board of Commissioners of Pottawatomie County v. Henderson, 66 Okla. 282 , 168 Pac. 1007 ; Edwards v. Phillips, 70 Okla. 9 , 172 Pac. 946 .

1928“A party cannot try his case in the trial court on one theory, and then ask a reversal of the judgment in this court on a theory not presented to the trial court or raised by the pleadings.” Bouton v. Carson, 51 Okla. 579 , 152 Pac. 131 ; Wallace v. Blassingame, 53 Okla. 198 , 155 Pac. 1143 ; Primous v. Wertz, 65 Okla. 7 , 162 Pac. 481 ; Board of Commissioners of Pottawatomie County v. Henderson, 66 Okla. 282 , 168 Pac. 1007 ; Edwards v. Phillips, 70 Okla. 9 , 172 Pac. 946 .

1928“A party cannot try his case in the trial court on one theory, and then ask a reversal of the judgment in this court on a theory not presented to the trial court or raised by the pleadings.” Bouton v. Carson, 51 Okla. 579 , 152 Pac. 131 ; Wallace v. Blassingame, 53 Okla. 198 , 155 Pac. 1143 ; Primous v. Wertz, 65 Okla. 7 , 162 Pac. 481 ; Board of Commissioners of Pottawatomie County v. Henderson, 66 Okla. 282 , 168 Pac. 1007 ; Edwards v. Phillips, 70 Okla. 9 , 172 Pac. 946 .

1928“A party cannot try his case in the trial court on one theory, and then ask a reversal of the judgment in this court on a theory not presented to the trial court or raised by the pleadings.” Bouton v. Carson, 51 Okla. 579 , 152 Pac. 131 ; Wallace v. Blassingame, 53 Okla. 198 , 155 Pac. 1143 ; Primous v. Wertz, 65 Okla. 7 , 162 Pac. 481 ; Board of Commissioners of Pottawatomie County v. Henderson, 66 Okla. 282 , 168 Pac. 1007 ; Edwards v. Phillips, 70 Okla. 9 , 172 Pac. 946 .

1928“A party cannot try his case in the trial court on one theory, and then ask a reversal of the judgment in this court on a theory not presented to the trial court or raised by the pleadings.” Bouton v. Carson, 51 Okla. 579 , 152 Pac. 131 ; Wallace v. Blassingame, 53 Okla. 198 , 155 Pac. 1143 ; Primous v. Wertz, 65 Okla. 7 , 162 Pac. 481 ; Board of Commissioners of Pottawatomie County v. Henderson, 66 Okla. 282 , 168 Pac. 1007 ; Edwards v. Phillips, 70 Okla. 9 , 172 Pac. 946 .

1928“A party cannot try his case in the trial court on one theory, and then ask a reversal of the judgment in this court on a theory not presented to the trial court or raised by the pleadings.” Bouton v. Carson, 51 Okla. 579 , 152 Pac. 131 ; Wallace v. Blassingame, 53 Okla. 198 , 155 Pac. 1143 ; Primous v. Wertz, 65 Okla. 7 , 162 Pac. 481 ; Board of Commissioners of Pottawatomie County v. Henderson, 66 Okla. 282 , 168 Pac. 1007 ; Edwards v. Phillips, 70 Okla. 9 , 172 Pac. 946 .

1928“A party cannot try his case in the trial court on one theory, and then ask a reversal of the judgment in this court on a theory not presented to the trial court or raised by the pleadings.” Bouton v. Carson, 51 Okla. 579 , 152 Pac. 131 ; Wallace v. Blassingame, 53 Okla. 198 , 155 Pac. 1143 ; Primous v. Wertz, 65 Okla. 7 , 162 Pac. 481 ; Board of Commissioners of Pottawatomie County v. Henderson, 66 Okla. 282 , 168 Pac. 1007 ; Edwards v. Phillips, 70 Okla. 9 , 172 Pac. 946 .