Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1944–2000 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ishmael v. Hendersongreen2 sentences1998Ishmael v. Henderson, 1955 OK 200 , 286 P.2d 265 . 1998Ishmael v. Henderson, 1955 OK 200 , 286 P.2d 265 . | 1 | 3 |
Newport v. Crane Service, Inc.green2 sentences1991Newport, 649 P.2d at 768 . 8 . 609 P.2d at 357 . 1989See Newport v. Crane Service, Inc., 649 P.2d 765 (Okl.1982). | 1 | 2 |
O'BAUGH v. Drilling Well Control, Inc.green2 sentences1991Newport, 649 P.2d at 768 . 8 . 609 P.2d at 357 . 1981O’Baugh v. Drilling Well Control, Inc., Okl., 609 P.2d 355, 359 [1980]; Ishmael v. Henderson, Okl., 286 P.2d 265, 267-268 [1955]. | 1 | 2 |
Parkhill Truck Company v. Reynoldsgreen2 sentences1981In Parkhill Truck Company v. Reynolds, Okl., 359 P.2d 1064, 1067 [1961], we said that: “The existence of an obligation to pay wages is not exclusively controlling in determining whether a given master, general or special, is responsible for the acts of a servant or for compensation to an injured workman.” . 1981In Parkhill Truck Company v. Reynolds, Okl., 359 P.2d 1064, 1067 [1961], we said that: "The existence of an obligation to pay wages is not exclusively controlling in determining whether a given master, general or special, is responsible for the acts of a servant or for compensation to an injured workman." [4] The terms of 85 O.S. 1971 § 3(8) are: "`Wages' means the money rate at which the service rendered is recompensed under the contract of hiring in force at the time of the injury, including the reasonable value of board, rent, housing, lodging, or similar advantage received from the employe | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
A. K. McBride Construction Co. v. Arkhoma Steel Erection Co.
neutral
2 sentences2000Co. v. Arkhoma Steel Erection Co., 1959 OK 196 , 348 P.2d 541 , where the supreme court held the application of the loaned servant doctrine was a question of fact. 2000Co. v. Arkhoma Steel Erection Co., 1959 OK 196 , 348 P.2d 541 , where the supreme court held the application of the loaned servant doctrine was a question of fact. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hodges v. Holding
green
2 sentences2000In holding that the application of the loaned servant doctrine was a question of fact, the court observed that (1) the operator had complete and exelusive control of the machine and operation thereof; (2) the riggers who assisted the operator used hand signals and "spotted" the machine where the tank could be picked up; (8) after securing lines to a tank, the riggers gave hand signals to the operator to pick the tank up and then directed him where to set it; (4) at no time did any of the riggers have anything to do with the operation of the machine. 16 In the instant case, (1) the National cra 2000Id. 113 The reason that the loaned servant doctrine was applied as a matter of law in the Smith and Wylie-Stewart cases was the undisputed fact that the borrowing employer in each case exercised "authoritative control" over the loaned servant concerning the operation of their equipment. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Rollins v. Rayhill
green
1 sentence2000In holding that the application of the loaned servant doctrine was a question of fact, the court observed that (1) the operator had complete and exelusive control of the machine and operation thereof; (2) the riggers who assisted the operator used hand signals and "spotted" the machine where the tank could be picked up; (8) after securing lines to a tank, the riggers gave hand signals to the operator to pick the tank up and then directed him where to set it; (4) at no time did any of the riggers have anything to do with the operation of the machine. 16 In the instant case, (1) the National cra | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Cherokee Lines, Inc. v. Bailey
green
1 sentence1998Cherokee Lines, Inc. v. Bailey, 1993 OK 111, ¶ 18 , 859 P.2d at 1111 . ¶ 9 While it is true that Claimant asked for permission before riding in the highway patrolmen’s car and before using their rifle and he had asked for their preference in managing the actions at the roadblock they had set up, Claimant was also performing in conformity with Tourism’s policies and procedures. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
City Diesel Service v. Collier
green
2 sentences1998If such findings are reasonably supported by competent evidence, they will not be disturbed on appeal.” City Diesel Service v. Collier, 1981 OK 75, ¶ 5 , 630 P.2d 1293, 1294 . 1998If such findings are reasonably supported by competent evidence, they will not be disturbed on appeal.” City Diesel Service v. Collier, 1981 OK 75, ¶ 5 , 630 P.2d 1293, 1294 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Chapman v. Union Equity Cooperative Exchange
green
1 sentence1993Such jurisdiction is only proper in Oklahoma when the injury occurs in Oklahoma or the employment contract is entered in Oklahoma. 85 O.S.1981, § 4; Chapman, supra. Without jurisdiction to hear the claim, the Workers’ Compensation Court has no occasion to apply the loaned servant doctrine. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Noyce v. Ratliff Drilling Co.
green
2 sentences1991As the 1982 amendment to section 12 abrogated the loaned servant doctrine to the extent described in supra note 2 of this opinion, the revised section 12 could not have been a basis for the Newport decision. 1991As the 1982 amendment to section 12 abrogated the loaned servant doctrine to the extent described in supra note 2 of this opinion, the revised section 12 could not have been a basis for the Newport decision. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Smith v. Hall
green
1 sentence1989Ratliff relies upon the case of Smith v. Hall, 418 P.2d 665 (Okl.1966), in which it was established that the loaned servant doctrine precludes liability to a general employer or contractor. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
City of Tulsa v. Randall
neutral
2 sentences1944Co. v. Beasley, 67 Okla. 27 , 168 P. 200 , City of Tulsa v. Randall, 174 Okla. 630 , 52 P. 2d 33 , and 39 C. 1944Co. v. Beasley, 67 Okla. 27 , 168 P. 200 , City of Tulsa v. Randall, 174 Okla. 630 , 52 P. 2d 33 , and 39 C. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Wylie-Stewart MacHinery Co. v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1944For a recent discussion of the loaned servant doctrine, see Wylie Stewart Machinery Co. v. Thomas, 192 Okla. 505 , 137 P. 2d 556 . 1944For a recent discussion of the loaned servant doctrine, see Wylie Stewart Machinery Co. v. Thomas, 192 Okla. 505 , 137 P. 2d 556 . | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Beasley
green
2 sentences1944Co. v. Beasley, 67 Okla. 27 , 168 P. 200 , City of Tulsa v. Randall, 174 Okla. 630 , 52 P. 2d 33 , and 39 C. 1944Co. v. Beasley, 67 Okla. 27 , 168 P. 200 , City of Tulsa v. Randall, 174 Okla. 630 , 52 P. 2d 33 , and 39 C. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.