course inquiry in Oklahoma

2006Id. at ¶ 77, 121 P.3d at 1110 . ¶23 The contractual duty to defend includes the right to control the course of the defense of the liability claim and to decide on litigation strategy.

1994Cases where compensation jurisdiction is denied frequently involve additional factors which negate the necessary, arising out of, or in the course of requirement, such as a fight causing the injury, Peterson v. Williams, 175 So.2d 364 (La.App.1965), or other circumstances which take the case from the employment sphere, such as becoming a store customer after picking up the check, Zarka v. Burger King, 206 Mich.App. 409 , 522 N.W.2d 650 (Mich.Ct.App.1994).

1994Cases where compensation jurisdiction is denied frequently involve additional factors which negate the necessary, arising out of, or in the course of requirement, such as a fight causing the injury, Peterson v. Williams, 175 So.2d 364 (La.App.1965), or other circumstances which take the case from the employment sphere, such as becoming a store customer after picking up the check, Zarka v. Burger King, 206 Mich.App. 409 , 522 N.W.2d 650 (Mich.Ct.App.1994).

1994Cases where compensation jurisdiction is denied frequently involve additional factors which negate the necessary, arising out of, or in the course of requirement, such as a fight causing the injury, Peterson v. Williams, 175 So.2d 364 (La.App.1965), or other circumstances which take the case from the employment sphere, such as becoming a store customer after picking up the check, Zarka v. Burger King, 206 Mich.App. 409 , 522 N.W.2d 650 (Mich.Ct.App.1994).

1979In a 1976 opinion of this Court in the case of Marquardt v. Webb, Commr., 545 P.2d 769, 774 , the hearing contemplated by the statutes here under consideration by agreement of the parties was set for a date some 33 days beyond the expiration of the ten-day period (then allowed) from receipt of request for hearing.

1979Veh., 186 Neb. 197 , 181 N.W.2d 843 , the Nebraska Court held it was not error for the hearing officer to have denied a motion for continuance made by the State in the course of the hearing to suspend because of absence of a State witness (officer) where no showing had been “made as to the evidence he will give, its materiality, the diligence employed to have the witness present, and the unavailability of other evidence to eliminate the need for such witness.” The court appeared to have no problem with the question of “jurisdiction” had the facts but warranted the hearing officer in granting a

1979Veh., 186 Neb. 197 , 181 N.W.2d 843 , the Nebraska Court held it was not error for the hearing officer to have denied a motion for continuance made by the State in the course of the hearing to suspend because of absence of a State witness (officer) where no showing had been “made as to the evidence he will give, its materiality, the diligence employed to have the witness present, and the unavailability of other evidence to eliminate the need for such witness.” The court appeared to have no problem with the question of “jurisdiction” had the facts but warranted the hearing officer in granting a

1959On that, 337 P.2d at page 449 , we said: In such case as the one at bar, the defendant may not at a later time reopen the case and have another jury speculate on his truthfulness, which he was unwilling to have weighed in the first instance.

1958He did not act in good faith, and should not be allowed to shield himself on the theory or claim that he is an innocent holder of the title * * * In Daniel v. Tolon, 53 Okl. 666 , 157 P. 756, 761 , 4 A.L.R. 704 , after citing our statutes on Notice, this court said: “It is a general rule, independent of statute, that where such facts or circumstances are known to a person in relation to a matter in which he is interested, as are sufficient to make it his duty as an honest and prudent man to inquire concerning the rights of other persons in the same matter, and the course of inquiry thus sugges

1958He did not act in good faith, and should not be allowed to shield himself on the theory or claim that he is an innocent holder of the title * * * In Daniel v. Tolon, 53 Okl. 666 , 157 P. 756, 761 , 4 A.L.R. 704 , after citing our statutes on Notice, this court said: “It is a general rule, independent of statute, that where such facts or circumstances are known to a person in relation to a matter in which he is interested, as are sufficient to make it his duty as an honest and prudent man to inquire concerning the rights of other persons in the same matter, and the course of inquiry thus sugges

1957Scales v. State, Okl.Cr., 270 P.2d 378 .

1946In Brownell v. Moorehead, 65 Okla. 218 , 165 P. 408 , the rule is stated as follows: “The trial court was not in error in admitting this testimony, for two reasons: First, the testimony was elicited upon cross-examination by defendant’s counsel and the objection made was by motion to strike.

1946In Brownell v. Moorehead, 65 Okla. 218 , 165 P. 408 , the rule is stated as follows: “The trial court was not in error in admitting this testimony, for two reasons: First, the testimony was elicited upon cross-examination by defendant’s counsel and the objection made was by motion to strike.

1896This case is within the exception to the rule, that: “In suits of equity in reference to a trust estate, the trustee and the cestui que trust are both to be joined.” The rule and the exception are laid down inVetterlein v. Barnes, 124 U. S. 169 , where it is said, that: "But the rule is different where the claim of plaintiff antedates the creation of the trust and the suit is brought, not in recognition or furtherance of the trust, but in hostilify to it.” The Statutes of Oklahoma, section 3767, also provid-s: “Except as herein otherwise provided, every express trust in real property, vaild as