explained test in Oklahoma

2012T14 In the 1947 opinion, Emery v. Goff 1947 OK 93 , 198 Okla. 584 , 180 P.2d 175 , we adjudicated a controversy that involved a contract for a contingent attorney's fee approved by a court in a guardianship proceeding. 17 Although approval by the guardianship court therein occurred slightly prior to the enactment of the 1924 statute, 18 we relied upon the 1941 version of the 1924 statutory language to explain the power of a guardian to bind the ward or the ward's estate concerning "contingent fees or contracts for recovery of property agreed upon and approved by courts. 19 We also relied upon

2012T14 In the 1947 opinion, Emery v. Goff 1947 OK 93 , 198 Okla. 584 , 180 P.2d 175 , we adjudicated a controversy that involved a contract for a contingent attorney's fee approved by a court in a guardianship proceeding. 17 Although approval by the guardianship court therein occurred slightly prior to the enactment of the 1924 statute, 18 we relied upon the 1941 version of the 1924 statutory language to explain the power of a guardian to bind the ward or the ward's estate concerning "contingent fees or contracts for recovery of property agreed upon and approved by courts. 19 We also relied upon

2009Cartwright v. Tidmore , 674 P.2d 14 , 16 (Okla. 1983), the court explained the test as "whether the right is such as to affect the public generally or merely affects a class of individuals." See also Sears v. Fair , 397 P.2d 134 , 137 (Okla. 1964) (applying the same test). ¶ 25 Under this test, municipalities and counties may come within the exception to the applicable period of limitation if the municipality is vindicating rights of the public at large as opposed to those of the county or municipality only.

2009Cartwright v. Tidmore , 674 P.2d 14 , 16 (Okla. 1983), the court explained the test as "whether the right is such as to affect the public generally or merely affects a class of individuals." See also Sears v. Fair , 397 P.2d 134 , 137 (Okla. 1964) (applying the same test). ¶ 25 Under this test, municipalities and counties may come within the exception to the applicable period of limitation if the municipality is vindicating rights of the public at large as opposed to those of the county or municipality only.

2009The court discussed this with regard to municipalities in HTB, Inc. , 769 P.2d at 136 , when it determined that a long-term plan for the extension and improvement of water mains used to supply water to the Oklahoma City area was a right affecting not only certain citizens but also "the rights of travelers, of fairgoers, of horserace fans, and of businesses contemplating expansion or relocation." Id.

2009The court discussed this with regard to municipalities in HTB, Inc. , 769 P.2d at 136 , when it determined that a long-term plan for the extension and improvement of water mains used to supply water to the Oklahoma City area was a right affecting not only certain citizens but also "the rights of travelers, of fairgoers, of horserace fans, and of businesses contemplating expansion or relocation." Id.

2008This Court explained that a presumption is a "procedural tool" which "is not evidence nor does it have evidentiary weight." Id. ¶ 11, 163 P.3d at 561 .

2008This Court further explained that "[a] presumption is a rule of law compelling a conclusion of fact in the absence of evidence against the conclusion." Id.

2006In Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 911 F.2d 1214 , 1217-18, n. 3 (6th Cir.1990), the court explained that the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not conflict with Rule 8(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a party to plead inconsistent theories, because "judicial estoppel does not bar a party from contradicting itself, but from contradicting a court’s determination that was based on that party's position.” 31 .

2006Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Service Co., 1990 OK 66, ¶ 22 , 796 P.2d 276, 286 . 32 .

2006Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Service Co., 1990 OK 66, ¶ 22 , 796 P.2d 276, 286 . 32 .

1999In Lanman v. Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office, 1998 OK 37, ¶ 9 , 958 P.2d 795, 799 , the Court explained the test as follows: The arising-out-of prong contemplates a causal relationship between the act engaged in at the time injury occurs and the requirements of employment.

1999In Lanman v. Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office, 1998 OK 37, ¶ 9 , 958 P.2d 795, 799 , the Court explained the test as follows: The arising-out-of prong contemplates a causal relationship between the act engaged in at the time injury occurs and the requirements of employment.