Subscribe: Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases
http://www.oscn.net/rss/STOKCSSC.asp
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
city  claimant  compensation  court  district court  district  oklahoma  plaintiff  sect  supp sect  workers compensation  workers 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases

Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases



The last 10 published decisions for the Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases



Last Build Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:22:08 GMT

 



GRISHAM v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, 112786, 2017 OK 69, ___ P.3d ___

Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:00:00 CST

¶0 Plaintiffs brought an action in the District Court for Oklahoma County against the City of Oklahoma City. Plaintiffs alleged they had suffered damages from a sewer backup. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs. The Honorable Bryan C. Dixon, District Judge, reduced the jury award to each couple to $25,000.00 for property damages. Plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. We hold plaintiffs' GTCA notices of claim using the form provided by the City of Oklahoma City and claiming specific damage to their property were also required by the GTCA to provide notice of a claim for personal injuries arising from that same transaction or occurrence in order to bring their subsequent suit in District Court for both property damage and personal injury/nuisance. Our holding is prospective. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED; AND MATTER IS REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS



CORBEIL v. EMRICKS VAN & STORAGE, 115672, 2017 OK 71, ___ P.3d ___

Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:00:00 CST

¶0 Workers' compensation claimant, who suffered bilateral inguinal hernias at work, filed for a contested hearing on the issue of temporary total disability. The administrative law judge determined that claimant was limited to six weeks of temporary total disability, despite claimant's contention that he suffered two hernias and should be eligible for twelve weeks total, six for each hernia he suffered. Claimant appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission. The Workers' Compensation Commission, sitting en banc , affirmed. Claimant appealed, and this matter was retained and made a companion case to another cause concerning the same statutory provision.



GRAHAM v. D & K OILFIELD SERVICES, 115898, 2017 OK 72, ___ P.3d ___

Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:00:00 CST

¶0 Workers' compensation claimant, who suffered a hernia and recurrent hernia due to work, requested a contested hearing on the constitutionality of the hernia provision of the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act, 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 61 . An administrative law judge determined 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 61 to be constitutional. Claimant appealed. The Workers' Compensation Commission, sitting en banc , affirmed the determination of the administrative law judge. Claimant appealed, and the cause was retained by this court and made companion to another cause concerning the same statutory provision.



CITY OF TULSA v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, 114825, 2017 OK 73, ___ P.3d ___

Tue, 19 Sep 2017 21:00:00 CST

¶0 Kendra Miller, defendant/appellant, appeals the decision of the district court, which denied her motion to remand an arbitration matter to the arbitrator. The original arbitration decision was vacated by the district court, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, and Certiorari was denied by this Court. Subsequently, Miller and the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 93, moved to remand the case to the arbitrator, which motion the district court denied. This Court retained the matter.



STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ELSEY, SCBD-6553, 2017 OK 70, ___ P.3d ___

Mon, 18 Sep 2017 21:00:00 CST

No Description Available, please check the website.



YOUNG v. STATION 27, INC., 113334, 2017 OK 68, ___ P.3d ___

Tue, 12 Sep 2017 21:00:00 CST

¶0 Plaintiff brought an action in the District Court against defendants and alleged her termination from employment had been motivated by her workers' compensation claim. Defendants filed two motions to dismiss and argued 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 7 created an exclusive statutory remedy for plaintiff before the Workers' Compensation Commission. One defendant also argued it was not plaintiff's employer. Plaintiff argued 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 7 violated Article 2 § 19 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Oklahoma Attorney General appeared in defense of the state statute. The District Court, the Honorable Bernard M. Jones, District Judge, granted the motions to dismiss and determined the Oklahoma Constitution was not violated. Plaintiff brought an application for an extraordinary writ, the Court recast the proceeding as an appeal and the Court retained the appeal. We hold plaintiff's retaliatory discharge action is based upon the retaliatory discharge statute in effect when her workers' compensation injury occurred, 85 O.S.2011 § 341 . We hold 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 7 does not prevent Young's § 341 action. We hold a Burk tort is not an available alternative remedy for plaintiff's § 341 retaliation claim. DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS



RE: REVISED CIVIL COVER SHEET, SCAD-2017-42, 2017 OK 65, ___ P.3d ___

Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:00:00 CST

No Description Available, please check the website.






RE: AMENDMENTS TO RULES FOR USING THE OKLAHOMA COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM, SCAD-2017-64, 2017 OK 67, ___ P.3d ___

Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:00:00 CST

No Description Available, please check the website.



OKLAHOMA AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOC. v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMM., 116143, 2017 OK 64, ___ P.3d ___

Thu, 31 Aug 2017 21:00:00 CST

¶0 Petitioners, who are a not-for-profit trade association of automobile dealers, an automobile dealer, and a prospective consumer in Oklahoma, challenged House Bill 2433, alleging that it is a revenue bill enacted outside of the procedure mandated in Article V, Section 33 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The parties agree that the passage of HB 2433 did not comply with Article V, Section 33; so the case turns on whether HB 2433 is a "revenue bill" to which Article V, Section 33 applies. Applying the test we have utilized since 1908, we conclude that, HB 2433 "does not levy a tax in the strict sense" because it removes a tax exemption from an already levied tax rather than levying any new tax. As such, HB 2433 is not a revenue bill subject to Article V, Section 33's requirements.