appellate review standard in Oklahoma

1987In this situation we apply the appellate review rule generally applicable to cases of equitable cognizance, and have examined the record for the purpose of ascertaining from the basic physical facts whether the findings are ‘against the clear weight of the evidence.’ City of Tulsa v. Swanson, Okl., 366 P.2d 629 , and City of Tulsa v. Nicholas, [Okl., 415 P.2d 917 ], supra. The findings appear to be in accord with the basic physical facts.

1969In this situation we apply the appellate review rule generally applicable to cases of equitable cognizance, and have examined the record for the purpose of ascertaining from the basic physical facts whether the findings are “against the clear weight of the evidence.” City of Tulsa v. Swanson, Okl., 366 P.2d 629 , and City of Tulsa v. Nicholas, supra. The findings appear to be in accord with the basic physical facts.

1987In this situation we apply the appellate review rule generally applicable to cases of equitable cognizance, and have examined the record for the purpose of ascertaining from the basic physical facts whether the findings are ‘against the clear weight of the evidence.’ City of Tulsa v. Swanson, Okl., 366 P.2d 629 , and City of Tulsa v. Nicholas, [Okl., 415 P.2d 917 ], supra. The findings appear to be in accord with the basic physical facts.

1969In this situation we apply the appellate review rule generally applicable to cases of equitable cognizance, and have examined the record for the purpose of ascertaining from the basic physical facts whether the findings are “against the clear weight of the evidence.” City of Tulsa v. Swanson, Okl., 366 P.2d 629 , and City of Tulsa v. Nicholas, supra. The findings appear to be in accord with the basic physical facts.

2004Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 1995 OK 108 , 905 P.2d 778, 780 .

2004Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 1995 OK 108 , 905 P.2d 778, 780 .

2004Evers v. FSF Overlake Associates, 2003 OK 53, ¶ 6 , 77 P.3d 581, 584 . 2 As in Evers, however, the correctness of the trial court's new trial denial rests on *674 the propriety of the earlier grant of summary judgment.

2004Evers v. FSF Overlake Associates, 2003 OK 53, ¶ 6 , 77 P.3d 581, 584 . 2 As in Evers, however, the correctness of the trial court's new trial denial rests on *674 the propriety of the earlier grant of summary judgment.

2004"A legal question involving statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review ..., i.e., a non-deferential, plenary and independent review of the trial court's legal ruling." Fulsom v. Fulsom, 2003 OK 96, ¶ 2 , 81 P.3d 652, 654 , citing Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 2001 OK 71 , ¶ 8 and n. 5, 33 P.3d 302 , 305 and n. 5. ¶ 4 The appellate review standard regarding a trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is also de novo, as the ultimate inquiry revolves around ascertaining the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's petition.

2004"A legal question involving statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review ..., i.e., a non-deferential, plenary and independent review of the trial court's legal ruling." Fulsom v. Fulsom, 2003 OK 96, ¶ 2 , 81 P.3d 652, 654 , citing Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 2001 OK 71 , ¶ 8 and n. 5, 33 P.3d 302 , 305 and n. 5. ¶ 4 The appellate review standard regarding a trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is also de novo, as the ultimate inquiry revolves around ascertaining the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's petition.

2004"A legal question involving statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review ..., i.e., a non-deferential, plenary and independent review of the trial court's legal ruling." Fulsom v. Fulsom, 2003 OK 96, ¶ 2 , 81 P.3d 652, 654 , citing Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 2001 OK 71 , ¶ 8 and n. 5, 33 P.3d 302 , 305 and n. 5. ¶ 4 The appellate review standard regarding a trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is also de novo, as the ultimate inquiry revolves around ascertaining the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's petition.

2004"A legal question involving statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review ..., i.e., a non-deferential, plenary and independent review of the trial court's legal ruling." Fulsom v. Fulsom, 2003 OK 96, ¶ 2 , 81 P.3d 652, 654 , citing Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund, 2001 OK 71 , ¶ 8 and n. 5, 33 P.3d 302 , 305 and n. 5. ¶ 4 The appellate review standard regarding a trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is also de novo, as the ultimate inquiry revolves around ascertaining the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's petition.

2002Hammonds v. Osteopathic Hospital Founders Association, 1996 OK 100 , 934 P.2d 319 , 322 (propriety of sanctions under § 2011); Broadwater v. Courtney, 1991 OK 39 , 809 P.2d 1310 (propriety of sanctions under § 2011 and 23 O.S.2001, § 103); see also Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 OK 25 , 21 P.3d 48 (review of decision to not impose sanctions in regard to discovery matter and under § 103) and Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)(review standard of sanction ruling under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 11, 28 U.S.C.A. [Rule 11], is abuse of discretion).

2002Hammonds v. Osteopathic Hospital Founders Association, 1996 OK 100 , 934 P.2d 319 , 322 (propriety of sanctions under § 2011); Broadwater v. Courtney, 1991 OK 39 , 809 P.2d 1310 (propriety of sanctions under § 2011 and 23 O.S.2001, § 103); see also Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 OK 25 , 21 P.3d 48 (review of decision to not impose sanctions in regard to discovery matter and under § 103) and Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)(review standard of sanction ruling under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 11, 28 U.S.C.A. [Rule 11], is abuse of discretion).

2002Hammonds v. Osteopathic Hospital Founders Association, 1996 OK 100 , 934 P.2d 319 , 322 (propriety of sanctions under § 2011); Broadwater v. Courtney, 1991 OK 39 , 809 P.2d 1310 (propriety of sanctions under § 2011 and 23 O.S.2001, § 103); see also Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 OK 25 , 21 P.3d 48 (review of decision to not impose sanctions in regard to discovery matter and under § 103) and Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)(review standard of sanction ruling under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 11, 28 U.S.C.A. [Rule 11], is abuse of discretion).

2002Hammonds v. Osteopathic Hospital Founders Association, 1996 OK 100 , 934 P.2d 319 , 322 (propriety of sanctions under § 2011); Broadwater v. Courtney, 1991 OK 39 , 809 P.2d 1310 (propriety of sanctions under § 2011 and 23 O.S.2001, § 103); see also Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 OK 25 , 21 P.3d 48 (review of decision to not impose sanctions in regard to discovery matter and under § 103) and Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)(review standard of sanction ruling under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 11, 28 U.S.C.A. [Rule 11], is abuse of discretion).