50 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.green2 sentences2009Logan County Election Bd., supra note 3, at ¶ 6, 29 P.3d at 548 (Opala, J., concurring in the result but not in the text of the court's pronouncement) [6] In Tate, supra note 3 , a discharged African-American employee sued a former employer for employment-related discrimination and retaliatory discharge. [7] In Tate, supra note 3 , the court held that where an employer discharges an employee in violation of a public policy that is clearly articulated in constitutional, statutory, or decisional law, the employer may be held liable for a tortious breach of a contractual obligation. 833 P.2d at 1 2009Logan County Election Bd., supra note 3, at ¶ 6, 29 P.3d at 548 (Opala, J., concurring in the result but not in the text of the court's pronouncement) [6] In Tate, supra note 3 , a discharged African-American employee sued a former employer for employment-related discrimination and retaliatory discharge. [7] In Tate, supra note 3 , the court held that where an employer discharges an employee in violation of a public policy that is clearly articulated in constitutional, statutory, or decisional law, the employer may be held liable for a tortious breach of a contractual obligation. 833 P.2d at 1 | 2 | 4 |
State Ex Rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma Citygreen2 sentences2025City , 1979 OK 115 598 P.2d 659 Burk factors, it fails to contain an adequate computation to support the award. 2025City , 1979 OK 115 598 P.2d 659 Burk factors, it fails to contain an adequate computation to support the award. | 1 | 9 |
Spencer v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.green2 sentences2017Enhancement ¶ 26 Plaintiff also contends the trial court erred in failing to enhance the lodestar fee “through consideration of the factors outlined in [Burk].” We restate that “[generally, the correct formula for calculating a reasonable .fee is to: 1) determine the compensation based on' ah hourly rate; and 2) enhance the fee through consideration of the factors outlined in Burk v. Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115 , 598 P.2d 659 (Burk factors).” Spencer, 2007 OK 76, ¶ 13 , 171 P.3d 890 (emphasis added), The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that trial courts are to calculate attorney fees by first 2017Enhancement ¶ 26 Plaintiff also contends the trial court erred in failing to enhance the lodestar fee “through consideration of the factors outlined in [Burk].” We restate that “[generally, the correct formula for calculating a reasonable .fee is to: 1) determine the compensation based on' ah hourly rate; and 2) enhance the fee through consideration of the factors outlined in Burk v. Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115 , 598 P.2d 659 (Burk factors).” Spencer, 2007 OK 76, ¶ 13 , 171 P.3d 890 (emphasis added), The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that trial courts are to calculate attorney fees by first | 1 | 4 |
Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc.green2 sentences2022Darrow , 2008 OK 1 Burk exception to only those matters which affect the welfare of the State as a whole and fit within the traditional limitations of government action. 2008Employer argued successfully that Plaintiff's claim must fail because her asserted sources of an Oklahoma public policy goal "did not apply" to her and could not therefore provide the basis of her Burk claim. 20 "[Aln employer's violation of a state-declared public policy is the funda *933 mental predicate for a Burk tort." Darrow, 2008 OK 1, ¶ 10 , 176 P.3d at 1210 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Collier v. Insignia Financial Groupgreen2 sentences2009Second, also in accord with the reasoning of List , the Court refused to create a Burk public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine where the employee's claim was based solely upon her status rather than her conduct and where adequate remedies existed under state and federal discrimination statutes. ¶ 5 It is interesting to note that the author of the majority opinion dissented in Collier v. Insignia Financial Group, 1999 OK 49 , 981 P.2d 321 to what the dissent characterized as a partial overruling of List and Marshall . [4] Collier holds that a victim of quid pro quo sexual har 2009Second, also in accord with the reasoning of List , the Court refused to create a Burk public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine where the employee's claim was based solely upon her status rather than her conduct and where adequate remedies existed under state and federal discrimination statutes. ¶ 5 It is interesting to note that the author of the majority opinion dissented in Collier v. Insignia Financial Group, 1999 OK 49 , 981 P.2d 321 to what the dissent characterized as a partial overruling of List and Marshall . [4] Collier holds that a victim of quid pro quo sexual har | 1 | 2 |
FLEIG v. LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION GROUPgreen2 sentences2025Because "[a] trial court order awarding attorney fees must set forth with specificity the facts and computation to support the award," Fleig , ¶ 23, 549 P.3d at 1212, the March 2023 Order is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. 2025Because "[a] trial court order awarding attorney fees must set forth with specificity the facts and computation to support the award," Fleig , ¶ 23, 549 P.3d at 1212, the March 2023 Order is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. | 1 | 1 |
Barker v. State Insurance Fundgreen2 sentences2021Fund , 2001 OK 94 , ¶ 25, 40 P.3d 463, 470 (holding a statute could not support a Burk claim because the statute did not define "mismanagement"). ¶8 The majority attempts to dodge the issue of a lack of a clear and well-defined statement of public policy by ruling that the executive order established a broad public policy of curtailing an infectious disease. 2021Fund , 2001 OK 94 , ¶ 25, 40 P.3d 463, 470 (holding a statute could not support a Burk claim because the statute did not define "mismanagement"). ¶8 The majority attempts to dodge the issue of a lack of a clear and well-defined statement of public policy by ruling that the executive order established a broad public policy of curtailing an infectious disease. | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds v. Advance Alarms, Inc.green2 sentences2021Reynolds , 2009 OK 97 , ¶ 18, 232 P.3d at 913 (holding that the statutory sources cited by the employee did not articulate the relevant public policy to support the employee's Burk claim). 2021Reynolds , 2009 OK 97 , ¶ 18, 232 P.3d at 913 (holding that the statutory sources cited by the employee did not articulate the relevant public policy to support the employee's Burk claim). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Smith v. Smithgreen2 sentences2018Under such circumstances, a "judicial balancing of the equities" has consistently controlled both the initial determination as to whether one party is entitled to attorney fees under § 110, and the ultimate determination of what is "just and proper under the circumstances." In our view, the Burk factors persist under § 110, but only in a circumscribed intermediate role between these two determinations; that is, the factors set forth in Burk become relevant and should be applied in the context of a § 110 attorney fee request when a party specifically challenges the reasonableness of the total f 2018Under such circumstances, a "judicial balancing of the equities" has consistently controlled both the initial determination as to whether one party is entitled to attorney fees under § 110, and the ultimate determination of what is "just and proper under the circumstances." In our view, the Burk factors persist under § 110, but only in a circumscribed intermediate role between these two determinations; that is, the factors set forth in Burk become relevant and should be applied in the context of a § 110 attorney fee request when a party specifically challenges the reasonableness of the total f | 1 | 1 |
Lowther v. Lowther (In Re Lowther)green2 sentences2018In re Lowther , 266 B.R. 753, 758-59 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2001), aff'd , 321 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 2002). 10 Father did argue below to the effect that the absence of any analysis of the Burk factors in Mother's motion, by itself, constituted error. 2018In re Lowther , 266 B.R. 753, 758-59 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2001), aff'd , 321 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 2002). 10 Father did argue below to the effect that the absence of any analysis of the Burk factors in Mother's motion, by itself, constituted error. | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 315529green | 1 | 1 |
| Clinton v. State Ex Rel. Logan County Election Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Raul C. Sanchez v. Philip Morris Incorporatedgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Oklahoma Department of Transportation v. Barnesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kavanagh v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlinesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vasek v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2022Vasek v. Board of County Comm'rs , 2008 OK 35 186 P.3d 928 ¶11 In Young , the plaintiff sought to assert a Burk tort as an alternative remedy for her 85 O.S. 2011 §341 Burk tort action." Young , 2017 OK 68 general principle stating when a statute creates both a right and a remedy for its enforcement the statutory remedy is exclusive." Young , 2017 OK 68 ¶12 Like the former §341, 85A O.S. 2010ANALYSIS 111 In general, "[a] viable Burk claim must allege (1) an actual or constructive discharge (2) of an at-will employee (8) in significant part for a reason that violates an Oklahoma public policy goal (4) that is found in Oklahoma's constitutional, statutory, or deci-sional law or in a federal constitutional provision that prescribes a norm of conduct for Oklahoma, and (5) no statutory remedy exists that is adequate to protect the Oklahoma policy goal." 5 Vasek v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2008 OK 835 , ¶14, 186 P.3d 928, 932 . | 7 | 2010–2022 |
Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
green
2 sentences2014In Shirazi, ¶ 9, 204 P.3d at 78 , we reaffirmed the rule in Kruchowski, ¶ 32, 202 P.3d at 153 , that one of the thresh hold showings that a plaintiff must make in order to maintain a Burk claim in tort is that "a breach of Oklahoma's public policy occurred for which there is no statutorily-crafted remedy." In Shephard , we squarely held: "Where a statutory remedy exists that is sufficient to protect the Oklahoma public policy goal, an employee has an adequate remedy that precludes resort to a tort cause of action to redress termination in violation of public policy." Shephard , 2009 OK 25 at ¶ 2014In Shirazi, ¶ 9, 204 P.3d at 78 , we reaffirmed the rule in Kruchowski, ¶ 32, 202 P.3d at 153 , that one of the thresh hold showings that a plaintiff must make in order to maintain a Burk claim in tort is that "a breach of Oklahoma's public policy occurred for which there is no statutorily-crafted remedy." In Shephard , we squarely held: "Where a statutory remedy exists that is sufficient to protect the Oklahoma public policy goal, an employee has an adequate remedy that precludes resort to a tort cause of action to redress termination in violation of public policy." Shephard , 2009 OK 25 at ¶ | 6 | 2009–2014 |
Willis v. Sequoyah House, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Willis v. Sequoyah House, Inc. , 2008 OK 87 , ¶ 15, 194 P.3d 1285 , 1290. ¶ 12 In the present case, Law Firm addressed the Burk factors at the hearing before the trial court. 2018Willis v. Sequoyah House, Inc. , 2008 OK 87 , ¶ 15, 194 P.3d 1285 , 1290. ¶ 12 In the present case, Law Firm addressed the Burk factors at the hearing before the trial court. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
In Re the Adoption of Baby Boy A
green
2 sentences2017In re Adoption of Baby Boy A, 2010 OK 39, ¶ 27 , 236 P.3d 116 . ¶ 13 When awarding the bonus fee in this case, the trial court considered some of the Burk factors when it stated that “the time and labor, involved in the case was significant ... the attorneys, involved for the Defendant are. quite skilled at this very specialized area of the law ... the fees charged are consistent with the fees charged by attorneys of this caliber ... and the case was undesirable given its age and progress through the trial court post verdict and then on appeal.” While we agree with Plaintiffs the trial court s 2017In re Adoption of Baby Boy A, 2010 OK 39, ¶ 27 , 236 P.3d 116 . ¶ 13 When awarding the bonus fee in this case, the trial court considered some of the Burk factors when it stated that “the time and labor, involved in the case was significant ... the attorneys, involved for the Defendant are. quite skilled at this very specialized area of the law ... the fees charged are consistent with the fees charged by attorneys of this caliber ... and the case was undesirable given its age and progress through the trial court post verdict and then on appeal.” While we agree with Plaintiffs the trial court s | 2 | 2013–2017 |
Martin v. Buckman
green
2 sentences2017A Burk analysis is not called for here. 2 ¶ 10 Martin v. Buckman, 1994 OK CIV APP 89 , 883 P.2d 185 , is directly on point. 2017A Burk analysis is not called for here. 2 ¶ 10 Martin v. Buckman, 1994 OK CIV APP 89 , 883 P.2d 185 , is directly on point. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Silver v. CPC-Sherwood Manor, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008These include: Vannerson v. University of Oklahoma, 1989 OK 125 , 784 P.2d 1053 (a Burk claim lies where an employee alleges he was discharged for going over his supervisor's head when he complained of an illegal disposition of state property); Todd v. Frank’s Tong Service, Inc., 1989 OK 121 , 784 P.2d 47 (a truck driver's allegation that he was discharged for refusing to operate motor vehicles which did not meet statutory brake and light requirements was sufficient to state an action for wrongful termination in accordance with Burk ); and Silver v. CPC-Sherwood Manor, Inc., 2004 OK 1 , 84 P.3 2008These include: Vannerson v. University of Oklahoma, 1989 OK 125 , 784 P.2d 1053 (a Burk claim lies where an employee alleges he was discharged for going over his supervisor's head when he complained of an illegal disposition of state property); Todd v. Frank’s Tong Service, Inc., 1989 OK 121 , 784 P.2d 47 (a truck driver's allegation that he was discharged for refusing to operate motor vehicles which did not meet statutory brake and light requirements was sufficient to state an action for wrongful termination in accordance with Burk ); and Silver v. CPC-Sherwood Manor, Inc., 2004 OK 1 , 84 P.3 | 2 | 2008–2016 |
Shephard v. Compsource Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2014In Shirazi, ¶ 9, 204 P.3d at 78 , we reaffirmed the rule in Kruchowski, ¶ 32, 202 P.3d at 153 , that one of the thresh hold showings that a plaintiff must make in order to maintain a Burk claim in tort is that "a breach of Oklahoma's public policy occurred for which there is no statutorily-crafted remedy." In Shephard , we squarely held: "Where a statutory remedy exists that is sufficient to protect the Oklahoma public policy goal, an employee has an adequate remedy that precludes resort to a tort cause of action to redress termination in violation of public policy." Shephard , 2009 OK 25 at ¶ 2014In Shirazi, ¶ 9, 204 P.3d at 78 , we reaffirmed the rule in Kruchowski, ¶ 32, 202 P.3d at 153 , that one of the thresh hold showings that a plaintiff must make in order to maintain a Burk claim in tort is that "a breach of Oklahoma's public policy occurred for which there is no statutorily-crafted remedy." In Shephard , we squarely held: "Where a statutory remedy exists that is sufficient to protect the Oklahoma public policy goal, an employee has an adequate remedy that precludes resort to a tort cause of action to redress termination in violation of public policy." Shephard , 2009 OK 25 at ¶ | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Shirazi v. Childtime Learning Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014In Shirazi, ¶ 9, 204 P.3d at 78 , we reaffirmed the rule in Kruchowski, ¶ 32, 202 P.3d at 153 , that one of the thresh hold showings that a plaintiff must make in order to maintain a Burk claim in tort is that "a breach of Oklahoma's public policy occurred for which there is no statutorily-crafted remedy." In Shephard , we squarely held: "Where a statutory remedy exists that is sufficient to protect the Oklahoma public policy goal, an employee has an adequate remedy that precludes resort to a tort cause of action to redress termination in violation of public policy." Shephard , 2009 OK 25 at ¶ 2014In Shirazi, ¶ 9, 204 P.3d at 78 , we reaffirmed the rule in Kruchowski, ¶ 32, 202 P.3d at 153 , that one of the thresh hold showings that a plaintiff must make in order to maintain a Burk claim in tort is that "a breach of Oklahoma's public policy occurred for which there is no statutorily-crafted remedy." In Shephard , we squarely held: "Where a statutory remedy exists that is sufficient to protect the Oklahoma public policy goal, an employee has an adequate remedy that precludes resort to a tort cause of action to redress termination in violation of public policy." Shephard , 2009 OK 25 at ¶ | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Oliver's Sports Center, Inc. v. National Standard Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2013Co., 1980 OK 120 , 615 P.2d 291 , that Oliver extended the Burk factors to all types of actions including domestic relations cases. 2013Co., 1980 OK 120 , 615 P.2d 291 , that Oliver extended the Burk factors to all types of actions including domestic relations cases. | 2 | 1998–2013 |
Hayes v. Eateries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010However, with respect to the floor tiles, the Court held that "Tiff [plaintiff] was in fact discharged for going over his supervisor's head in complaint of an illegal disposition of state property then public policy is invoked...." Vannerson at ¶ 11 , 784 P.2d at 1055 . 30 126 In Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 1995 OK 108 , 905 P.2d 778 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in distinguishing Hayes's alleged Burk claim, stated that Hayes's situation "involves only the private or proprietary interests of the employer-employee relationship, not the direct interests of the general public...." Id. at ¶ 24, 905 P 2010However, with respect to the floor tiles, the Court held that "Tiff [plaintiff] was in fact discharged for going over his supervisor's head in complaint of an illegal disposition of state property then public policy is invoked...." Vannerson at ¶ 11 , 784 P.2d at 1055 . 30 126 In Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 1995 OK 108 , 905 P.2d 778 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in distinguishing Hayes's alleged Burk claim, stated that Hayes's situation "involves only the private or proprietary interests of the employer-employee relationship, not the direct interests of the general public...." Id. at ¶ 24, 905 P | 2 | 2002–2010 |
Vannerson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okl.
green
2 sentences2010Supp.2010 § 218, whose mission is "to independently serve the citizens of Oklahoma by promoting accountability and fiscal integrity in state and local government." 29 11 25 In Vannerson v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 1989 OK 125 , 784 P.2d 1053 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court considered the Burk claim of an employee who alleged he was terminated after he reported discrepancies in the university warehouse inventory records. 2010Supp.2010 § 218, whose mission is "to independently serve the citizens of Oklahoma by promoting accountability and fiscal integrity in state and local government." 29 11 25 In Vannerson v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 1989 OK 125 , 784 P.2d 1053 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court considered the Burk claim of an employee who alleged he was terminated after he reported discrepancies in the university warehouse inventory records. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Todd v. Frank's Tong Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008These include: Vannerson v. University of Oklahoma, 1989 OK 125 , 784 P.2d 1053 (a Burk claim lies where an employee alleges he was discharged for going over his supervisor's head when he complained of an illegal disposition of state property); Todd v. Frank’s Tong Service, Inc., 1989 OK 121 , 784 P.2d 47 (a truck driver's allegation that he was discharged for refusing to operate motor vehicles which did not meet statutory brake and light requirements was sufficient to state an action for wrongful termination in accordance with Burk ); and Silver v. CPC-Sherwood Manor, Inc., 2004 OK 1 , 84 P.3 2008These include: Vannerson v. University of Oklahoma, 1989 OK 125 , 784 P.2d 1053 (a Burk claim lies where an employee alleges he was discharged for going over his supervisor's head when he complained of an illegal disposition of state property); Todd v. Frank’s Tong Service, Inc., 1989 OK 121 , 784 P.2d 47 (a truck driver's allegation that he was discharged for refusing to operate motor vehicles which did not meet statutory brake and light requirements was sufficient to state an action for wrongful termination in accordance with Burk ); and Silver v. CPC-Sherwood Manor, Inc., 2004 OK 1 , 84 P.3 | 2 | 1995–2008 |
Arkoma Gas Co. v. Otis Engineering Corp.
green
2 sentences2007In Arkoma Gas Co. v. Otis Engineering Corp., 1993 OK 27, ¶ 6 , 849 P.2d 392 , we affirmed a fee award of $5,500 in a breach of warranty case in which the plaintiff sued for more than $70,000 and ultimately recovered only $100.84. 31 Clearly, the allowance awarded in the instant case is within the range of fees in relation to damages previously approved by this Court. 2) Incentive fee. 125 Spencer asserts that the awarded fee should be enhanced specifically when considering the following Burk factors: time and labor required; novelty and difficulty of the questions; the fact that billing the cl 2007In Arkoma Gas Co. v. Otis Engineering Corp., 1993 OK 27, ¶ 6 , 849 P.2d 392 , we affirmed a fee award of $5,500 in a breach of warranty case in which the plaintiff sued for more than $70,000 and ultimately recovered only $100.84. 31 Clearly, the allowance awarded in the instant case is within the range of fees in relation to damages previously approved by this Court. 2) Incentive fee. 125 Spencer asserts that the awarded fee should be enhanced specifically when considering the following Burk factors: time and labor required; novelty and difficulty of the questions; the fact that billing the cl | 2 | 1998–2007 |
Tosto v. State
green
2 sentences2022"We review 'a trial court's ruling either vacating or refusing to vacate a judgment [for] abuse of discretion.' " In re H.R.T ., 2013 OK CIV APP 114 362 P.3d 666 Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. H Webb Enters., Inc., 2000 OK 78 13 P.3d 480 Fent v. Okla. 2022"We review 'a trial court's ruling either vacating or refusing to vacate a judgment [for] abuse of discretion.' " In re H.R.T ., 2013 OK CIV APP 114 362 P.3d 666 Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. H Webb Enters., Inc., 2000 OK 78 13 P.3d 480 Fent v. Okla. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
YOUNG v. STATION 27, INC.
green
2 sentences2022Vasek v. Board of County Comm'rs , 2008 OK 35 186 P.3d 928 ¶11 In Young , the plaintiff sought to assert a Burk tort as an alternative remedy for her 85 O.S. 2011 §341 Burk tort action." Young , 2017 OK 68 general principle stating when a statute creates both a right and a remedy for its enforcement the statutory remedy is exclusive." Young , 2017 OK 68 ¶12 Like the former §341, 85A O.S. 2022Vasek v. Board of County Comm'rs , 2008 OK 35 186 P.3d 928 ¶11 In Young , the plaintiff sought to assert a Burk tort as an alternative remedy for her 85 O.S. 2011 §341 Burk tort action." Young , 2017 OK 68 general principle stating when a statute creates both a right and a remedy for its enforcement the statutory remedy is exclusive." Young , 2017 OK 68 ¶12 Like the former §341, 85A O.S. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. v. H. Webb Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022"We review 'a trial court's ruling either vacating or refusing to vacate a judgment [for] abuse of discretion.' " In re H.R.T ., 2013 OK CIV APP 114 362 P.3d 666 Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. H Webb Enters., Inc., 2000 OK 78 13 P.3d 480 Fent v. Okla. 2022"We review 'a trial court's ruling either vacating or refusing to vacate a judgment [for] abuse of discretion.' " In re H.R.T ., 2013 OK CIV APP 114 362 P.3d 666 Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. H Webb Enters., Inc., 2000 OK 78 13 P.3d 480 Fent v. Okla. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
TORRES v. SEABOARD FOODS, LLC
green
2 sentences2022Vasek , 2008 OK 35 15 O.S. § 761.1 Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC , 2016 OK 20 373 P.3d 1057 Burk tort is not available in the district court. 2022Vasek , 2008 OK 35 15 O.S. § 761.1 Torres v. Seaboard Foods, LLC , 2016 OK 20 373 P.3d 1057 Burk tort is not available in the district court. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lowther v. Lowther (In Re Lowther)
green
2 sentences2018In re Lowther , 266 B.R. 753, 758-59 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2001), aff'd , 321 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 2002). 10 Father did argue below to the effect that the absence of any analysis of the Burk factors in Mother's motion, by itself, constituted error. 2018In re Lowther , 266 B.R. 753, 758-59 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2001), aff'd , 321 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 2002). 10 Father did argue below to the effect that the absence of any analysis of the Burk factors in Mother's motion, by itself, constituted error. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sneed v. Sneed
green
2 sentences2015In Sneed v. Sneed, 1984 OK 22, ¶ 5 , 681 P.2d 754 , the Oklahoma - Supreme - Court | states: "The hourly rates of compensation should be determined; then an additional attorney fee should be based on the following criteria: [the 12 Burk factors]." (footnote omitted). 7. 2015In Sneed v. Sneed, 1984 OK 22, ¶ 5 , 681 P.2d 754 , the Oklahoma - Supreme - Court | states: "The hourly rates of compensation should be determined; then an additional attorney fee should be based on the following criteria: [the 12 Burk factors]." (footnote omitted). 7. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Allied Tower Co.
neutral
2 sentences2014Dep't of Transp. v. Allied Tower Co., Inc. , 2006 OK CIV APP 71, 136 P.3d 718, and State ex rel. 2014Dep't of Transp. v. Allied Tower Co., Inc. , 2006 OK CIV APP 71, 136 P.3d 718, and State ex rel. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Atkinson v. Halliburton Co. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Saint v. Data Exchange, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| McCrady v. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Crain v. National American Insurance Co. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Richmond v. Oneok, Inc. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Gabler v. Holder and Smith, Inc. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Corbell v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Green Bay Packaging v. Preferred Packaging, Inc. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Williams v. Dub Ross Co. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Brashier v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Marshall v. OK Rental & Leasing, Inc. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Brown v. Ford green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Groce v. Foster green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.