propriety rule in Oklahoma

1995Jenkins v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 168 , 145 P. 500 (1914).

1995Jenkins v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 168 , 145 P. 500 (1914).

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., 352 F.2d 936 [C.A.D.C. 1965], cert. denied, 383 U.S. 948 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 219 [1966]; (c) selling a business by people who then become employees of the buyer, Stauter v. Walnut Grove Products, 188 N.W.2d 305 [Iowa 1971]; (d) moving after being lured by an indication of lengthy employment, Brawthen v. H & R Block, Inc., 28 Cal. App.3d 131 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 486 [1972]; (e) implied or express promises about job security made during recruiting, Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, 57 N.Y.2d 458 , 457 N.Y.S.2d 193 , 443 N.E.2d 441 [1982] and (f) statements about goo

1987See Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., supra note 16, 652 P.2d at 629 , and Brockmeyer v. Dunn & Bradstreet, supra note 15, 335 N.W. at 838. .Examples of the implied-in-law contract theories that courts have crafted from the general categories are: (a) job training where the costs are borne by the employee, Ward v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 480 S.W.2d 483 [Tex.Civ.App.1972]; (b) detrimental reliance followed by turning down offers of other employment, Fulton v. Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders Association of America, 63 Tex.App. 569 , 476 S.W.2d 644 [1971] and Maloney v. E.I.

1987While we do not reject the propriety of such a rule, we are not persuaded that it should be the result of judicial decision." [Emphasis supplied.] [19] See Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., supra note 16, 652 P.2d at 629 , and Brockmeyer v. Dunn & Bradstreet, supra note 15, 335 N.W. at 838. [20] Examples of the implied-in-law contract theories that courts have crafted from the general categories are: (a) job training where the costs are borne by the employee, Ward v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 480 S.W.2d 483 [Tex.Civ.App. 1972]; (b) detrimental reliance followed by turning down offers of other

1987See Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., supra note 16, 652 P.2d at 629 , and Brockmeyer v. Dunn & Bradstreet, supra note 15, 335 N.W. at 838. .Examples of the implied-in-law contract theories that courts have crafted from the general categories are: (a) job training where the costs are borne by the employee, Ward v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 480 S.W.2d 483 [Tex.Civ.App.1972]; (b) detrimental reliance followed by turning down offers of other employment, Fulton v. Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders Association of America, 63 Tex.App. 569 , 476 S.W.2d 644 [1971] and Maloney v. E.I.

1987While we do not reject the propriety of such a rule, we are not persuaded that it should be the result of judicial decision." [Emphasis supplied.] [19] See Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., supra note 16, 652 P.2d at 629 , and Brockmeyer v. Dunn & Bradstreet, supra note 15, 335 N.W. at 838. [20] Examples of the implied-in-law contract theories that courts have crafted from the general categories are: (a) job training where the costs are borne by the employee, Ward v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 480 S.W.2d 483 [Tex.Civ.App. 1972]; (b) detrimental reliance followed by turning down offers of other

1954Under the evidence, the matter was properly submitted to the jury and we find no error in the instruction given.” In the case of Kelly v. Employers Casualty Co., 202 Okl. 437 , 214 P.2d 925, 929 , wherein the question of the propriety of an instruction on unavoidable accident was concerned, we said: “Negligence is not an element of unavoidable accident but it must be the result of unforeseen circumstances and conditions producing it and which could not have been avoided except by the exercise of ‘ exceptional foresight.

1954Under the evidence, the matter was properly submitted to the jury and we find no error in the instruction given.” In the case of Kelly v. Employers Casualty Co., 202 Okl. 437 , 214 P.2d 925, 929 , wherein the question of the propriety of an instruction on unavoidable accident was concerned, we said: “Negligence is not an element of unavoidable accident but it must be the result of unforeseen circumstances and conditions producing it and which could not have been avoided except by the exercise of ‘ exceptional foresight.

1944See P. & S. Taxi & Baggage Co. v. Cameron, 183 Okla. 226 , 80 P. 2d 618 ; Ross v. Gearin, 145 Okla. 66 , 291 P. 534 .

1944See P. & S. Taxi & Baggage Co. v. Cameron, 183 Okla. 226 , 80 P. 2d 618 ; Ross v. Gearin, 145 Okla. 66 , 291 P. 534 .

1944In support of the propriety of such instruction defendant cites Harmon v. Haas, 61 N. D. 772 , 241 N. W. 70 , but the rule therein announced is not one which obtains in this jurisdiction.

1944In support of the propriety of such instruction defendant cites Harmon v. Haas, 61 N. D. 772 , 241 N. W. 70 , but the rule therein announced is not one which obtains in this jurisdiction.

1943In Wade v. Hope & Killingsworth, 89 Okla. 64 , 213 P. 549 , when considering the propriety of hearing the defense of res judicata on motion to dismiss, the court said: “In regard to the appeal in the instant case, it is sufficient to say: That the plea of res adjudicata is a defensive matter and must be pleaded and proved the same, as any other defense, and cannot be tried upon a motion to dismiss after the issues are framed and a question of fact is presented for determination on said issue, (sic) That the trial court' in this proceeding erred in attempting to try the facts in the case upon a

1943In Wade v. Hope & Killingsworth, 89 Okla. 64 , 213 P. 549 , when considering the propriety of hearing the defense of res judicata on motion to dismiss, the court said: “In regard to the appeal in the instant case, it is sufficient to say: That the plea of res adjudicata is a defensive matter and must be pleaded and proved the same, as any other defense, and cannot be tried upon a motion to dismiss after the issues are framed and a question of fact is presented for determination on said issue, (sic) That the trial court' in this proceeding erred in attempting to try the facts in the case upon a

1935The propriety of applying the principle of waiver to such a course of conduct was recognized by this court in the case of Garner et al. v. Riddle, 140 Okla. 70 , 282 P. 319 , wherein we said in syllabus one: “Where a petition of intervention is filed in a cause without objection on behalf of the parties against whom the relief is sought, and thereafter an answer to said plea of intervention is filed, asking affirmative relief against the interpleader by the parties against whom the plea of intervention is directed, and said parties go to trial without any objection, the question of whether or

1935The propriety of applying the principle of waiver to such a course of conduct was recognized by this court in the case of Garner et al. v. Riddle, 140 Okla. 70 , 282 P. 319 , wherein we said in syllabus one: “Where a petition of intervention is filed in a cause without objection on behalf of the parties against whom the relief is sought, and thereafter an answer to said plea of intervention is filed, asking affirmative relief against the interpleader by the parties against whom the plea of intervention is directed, and said parties go to trial without any objection, the question of whether or