6 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1903–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burk v. K-Mart Corp.green1 sentence1997Tyler thus alleged that either or both of the federal acts represented a “clear mandate of public policy as articulated by constitutional, statutory or decisional law,” which would support a claim for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception to the discharge at will rule enunciated in Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 28 (Okla.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurantgreen1 sentence1996The doctrine relied on by appellees to support a discharge or a bar to suit against them is the one satisfaction rule that we recently revisited in the case of Kirkpatrick v. Chrysler Corp., 920 P.2d 122 (Okla.1996); Stated generally this rule is: “[w]here liability is joint and several, the injured party may institute several suits against the multiple tort-feasors, but satisfaction of a judgment against one of the tortfeasors bars a judgment against the other tortfeasors.” Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, 756 P.2d 1232, 1234 (Okla.1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shirazi v. Childtime Learning Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Shirazi , 2009 OK 13, ¶ 12 , 204 P.3d at 79 . ¶11 The Legislature has declared that the OADA "provides the exclusive remedies within this state . . . for individuals alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, creed, age, disability or genetic information." 25 O.S.2011, § 1101(A) (emphasis added). 4 To leave no doubt about the intended effect of this declaration of purpose, the Legislature further expressly provided that "any common law remedies are hereby abolished." 25 O.S.2001, § 1350(A). 2014Shirazi , 2009 OK 13, ¶ 12 , 204 P.3d at 79 . ¶11 The Legislature has declared that the OADA "provides the exclusive remedies within this state . . . for individuals alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, creed, age, disability or genetic information." 25 O.S.2011, § 1101(A) (emphasis added). 4 To leave no doubt about the intended effect of this declaration of purpose, the Legislature further expressly provided that "any common law remedies are hereby abolished." 25 O.S.2001, § 1350(A). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
green
2 sentences2009Kruchowski v. The Weyerhaeuser Co., 2008 OK 105, ¶ 25 , 202 P.3d 144, 152 . 2009Kruchowski v. The Weyerhaeuser Co., 2008 OK 105, ¶ 25 , 202 P.3d 144, 152 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kirkpatrick v. Chrysler Corp.
green
1 sentence1996The doctrine relied on by appellees to support a discharge or a bar to suit against them is the one satisfaction rule that we recently revisited in the case of Kirkpatrick v. Chrysler Corp., 920 P.2d 122 (Okla.1996); Stated generally this rule is: “[w]here liability is joint and several, the injured party may institute several suits against the multiple tort-feasors, but satisfaction of a judgment against one of the tortfeasors bars a judgment against the other tortfeasors.” Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, 756 P.2d 1232, 1234 (Okla.1988). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States Ex Rel. Redfield v. Windom
green
1 sentence1903(Knox County v. Asp inwall, 24 How. 377 , 383.) Both requisites must concur in every ease.” In Redfield v. Window, 137 U. S. 636 , the court said: “That the return showed disputed questions of law and fact, which ought not to be tried In a proceeding for a mandamus, and that this was sufficient cause for the discharge of the rule and the refusal to issue the writ.” For the reasons herein stated, the petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus must be dismissed. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.