Vol 91 No 9 (May 8)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Oklahoma Statutes Title 12. Civil Procedure
OKLAHOMA STATUTES TITLE 12. CIVIL PROCEDURE §12-1. Title of chapter...........................................................................................................................30 §12-2. Force of common law.................................................................................................................30 §12-3. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-4. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-5. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-6. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-7. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-8. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................30 §12-9. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984.............................................................31 §12-10. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984...........................................................31 §12-11. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984...........................................................31 §12-12. Repealed by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 32, eff. Nov. 1, 1984...........................................................31 -
State Ownership of Beds of Inland Waters—A Summary and Reexamination Peter N
Nebraska Law Review Volume 57 | Issue 3 Article 4 1978 State Ownership of Beds of Inland Waters—A Summary and Reexamination Peter N. Davis University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Peter N. Davis, State Ownership of Beds of Inland Waters—A Summary and Reexamination, 57 Neb. L. Rev. 665 (1978) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol57/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. By Peter N. Davis* State Ownership of Beds of Inland Waters-A Summary and Reexamination I. INTRODUCTION States rely on state ownership of the beds of streams, rivers, and lakes for various regulatory and proprietary purposes. These include licensing of bed use, leasing of underlying miner- al rights, protection of public use rights, assertion of public trust powers, and location of boundaries of abutting privately-owned land. The extent of this state ownership in states created from federal territories is determined by a conjunction of the follow- ing: (1) the "equal footing rule," (2) the law of federal land patent interpretation, (3) state rules on incidents to title to abutting uplands, (4) federal and state definitions of navigability, and (5) the law of implied grants of land from the sovereign. States have asserted title to the beds of many streams, rivers, and lakes by assuming the correctness of certain interpretations of these rules of law. -
Commissioner Richard B. Long Chair, UUDDA/UUDA Drafting Committee
Memo to: Commissioner Richard B. Long Chair, UUDDA/UUDA Drafting Committee From: Joe Colquitt Reporter Date: September 24, 2015 Apart from a few routine tweaks, at the close of our meeting there were three issues to be addressed. I have spent considerable time researching, reading and deciding how to address the issues raised. Here are my suggestions: ISSUE 1: Question: How can a statute overrule a constitutional provision? That is a good question with an easy answer. It cannot. Thus, as explained below, I have tweaked the language in § 2(2) and left § 4(a) intact. Why the question? Section 2(2) defines “law” to include “the federal or a state constitution, a federal or state statute, a judicial decision or order, a rule of court, an executive order, and an administrative rule, regulation, or order.” Section 4(a) states that with limited exceptions, “if a law of this state requires or permits use of a sworn declaration, an unsworn declaration meeting the requirements of this [act] has the same effect as a sworn declaration.” Assume the enacting state’s constitution required all declarations used in adoption proceedings be under oath or sworn (any law to the contrary notwithstanding). Applying Section 4(a), the “law [i.e., “state constitution” – § 2(2)] of the state requires use of a sworn declaration,” yet 4(a) establishes that an unsworn declaration “has the same effect as a sworn declaration.” Ergo, the [act] trumps the state constitutional provision. But, of course, it cannot; thus, the provision is defective and declarations for adoption proceedings would need to be under oath as required by the state constitutional mandate. -
FY-08 Legislative Appropriations
Oklahoma House of Representatives FY‐08 Legislative Appropriations Centennial Edition Fiscal Year 2008 Legislative Appropriations Oklahoma House of Representatives Speaker Lance Cargill Appropriations and Budget Committee Representative Chris Benge, Chairman Representative Ken Miller, Vice Chair July, 2007 Prepared by: House Fiscal Staff Committee and Subcommittee Membership Appropriations and Budget Committee Chris Benge, Chair Ken Miller, Vice Chair John Auffet Guy Liebmann John Carey Bill Nations James Covey Randy Terrill Shane Jett Revenue & Taxation Subcommittee Randy Terrill, Chair Danny Morgan, Vice Chair Dale DeWitt Richard Morrissette Joe Dorman Earl Sears Tad Jones Rules Committee Shane Jett, Chair Bill Nations, Vice Chair James Covey Ryan Kiesel Joe Dorman Greg Piatt Rob Johnson Trebor Worthen Tad Jones Elections & Redistricting Subcommittee Trebor Worthen, Chair Purcy Walker, Vice Chair Dennis Adkins Randy Terrill Ryan McMullen Page i Education Committee Tad Jones, Chair Todd Thomsen, Vice Chair Neil Brannon Sally Kern Ann Coody Ray McCarter Doug Cox Jeannie McDaniel David Dank Eric Proctor Lee Denney Phil Richardson Joe Dorman Jabar Shumate Terry Hyman Dan Sullivan Terry Ingmire Common Education Subcommittee Ann Coody, Chair Neil Brannon, Vice Chair Ed Cannaday Weldon Watson Dale DeWitt Susan Winchester Ray McCarter Higher Education & Career Tech Subcommittee Terry Ingmire, Chair David Derby, Vice Chair Terry Hyman Pam Peterson Charlie Joyner Jabar Shumate Bill Nations Arts & Culture Subcommittee Lee Denney, Chair Ben Sherrer, -
ONG VUE, Petitioner
No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ONG VUE, Petitioner V. FRANK X. HENKE, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; ERNEST E. HAYNES, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; MICHAEL W. ROACH, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; DIANNE B. OWENS, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; ADAM LUCK, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; JOHN HOLDER, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; KEVIN J. GROSS, Oklahoma Board of Corrections Member; DELYNN FUDGE, Executive Director, Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board; THOMAS GILLERT, Chairperson of the Pardon and Parole Board; ROBERT MACY, Pardon and Parole Board Member; C. ALLEN McCALL, Pardon and Parole Board Member; MICHAEL STEELE, Pardon and Parole Board Member; ROBERTA FULLERTON, Pardon and Parole Board Member; MELISSA L. BLANTON, Pardon and Parole Staff Attorney Respondents On 'Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Ong Vue DOC#26488 1 Pro se Litigant Dick Conner Correctional Center 129 Conner Road Hominy, Oklahoma 74035 QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Petitioner Vue "failed to state a claim" is in contrary to the holding of Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005), where Petitioner Vue, under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, challenges the constitutionality of the Oklahoma state parole procedures on constitutional and statutory grounds. Whether Petitioner Vue's 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 claim on the crucial distinction between I judicial review of substantive agency decisions and judicial review of the agency's compliance with the substantive requirements of Oklahoma Statutes title 57, § 332.7 (Supp. -
215227952.Pdf
THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE SELECTED ASPECTS OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR IN THE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE OF OKLAHOMA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION BY RAYMOND E*"CLEVELAND NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 1967 SELECTED ASPECTS OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR IN THE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE OF OKLAHOMA APPROVED BY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer would like to take this opportunity to express his appreciation to the many individuals who rendered assistance in this undertaking. In particular my gratitude ta Dr. Herbert R. Hengst as Major Professor and Committee Chairman for his patient and helpful guidance in the preparation of this report. Also to the other mem bers of the committee: Dr. James G. Harlow, Dr. Robert E. Ohm, and Dr. Joseph E. Pray. In addition, a vote of thanks to Dr. Freeman McKee, President of Murray State College and to Joan Kimbrough, Secretary to the Deans, for giving so generously of their time and assistance in this study. And to my wife. Ginger, sons, Mark, John, Greg, and Jeff, and to daughter, Val, to whom this effort is dedicated for their steadfast encouragement and moral support. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWI£DGEMENTS ............................... ill Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 The Concept of Discipline, Back ground and P u r p o s e ........... ...... 1 Statement of Problem............... 13 Delimitation of the Study......... 14 Definition of Terms................. 15 P r o c e d u r e ......................... 15 S u m m a r y .................... -
IN the IOWA SUPREME COURT No. 18-1280
IN THE IOWA SUPREME COURT No. 18-1280 ______________________________________________________________ JOSHUA VENCKUS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF IOWA CITY; ANDREW RICH; JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; ANNE LAHEY; NAEDA ELLIOTT; and DANA CHRISTIANSEN, Defendants-Appellants. ______________________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY THE HONORABLE CHAD KEPROS, JUDGE ______________________________________________________________ FINAL BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS CITY OF IOWA CITY AND ANDREW RICH ______________________________________________________________ Eric Goers Susan Dulek Assistant City Attorneys 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR CITY OF IOWA CITY AND ANDREW RICH ELECTRONICALLY FILED JAN 16, 2019 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. 5 ROUTING STATEMENT .................................................................................... 17 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................. 17 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .......................................................................... 20 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 22 I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO DISMISS VENCKUS’S MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM WAS SUPPORTED -
Probate Estates In
PROBATE ESTATES IN: TEXAS OKLAHOMA LOUISIANA OKLAHOMA CITY ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL LANDMEN Oklahoma City, Oklahoma October 4, 2004 George A. Snell, III Attorney at Law Herring Bank Building 2201 Civic Circle, Suite 508 Amarillo, TX 79109 (806) 359-8611 (806) 359-1274 FAX [email protected] Timothy C. Dowd Richard W. Revels, Jr. Elias, Books, Brown, Peterson & Massad Liskow & Lewis 211 North Robinson, Suite 1300 822 Harding Street Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7114 P. O. Box 52008 (405) 235-1551 Lafayette, LA 70505-2008 (405) 235-1572 FAX (337) 232-7424 [email protected] (337) 267-2399 FAX [email protected] Copyright © 1996 by George A. Snell, III, Timothy C. Dowd and Richard W. Revels, Jr. INTRODUCTION The authors attempt herein to summarize the estate procedures of Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, and to point out the significant differences between said procedures. DISCLAIMER The purpose of this article is to provide general principles of probate procedure and its impact upon the mineral estate. All of the subjects discussed herein could be and likely have been discussed in much greater detail in other articles or legal treatises. This article is intended only to provide these principles in a summary form so that a division order analyst may review these principles prior to interpreting instruments that may or may not convey a mineral or royalty interest. This article is not intended to give specific legal advice! While the authors have sought to draw together statutory and case law from numerous jurisdictions, the law is subject to many exceptions or variations from general principles, depending on the precise fact situation. -
Alumni Inducted Into Order of the Owl Jessica R
Sooner Lawyer Archive Volume 2013 | Issue 2 Fall 2013/Winter 2014 2013 Alumni Inducted into Order of the Owl Jessica R. Jones Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/soonerlawyer Part of the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Jessica R. (2013) "Alumni Inducted into Order of the Owl," Sooner Lawyer Archive: Vol. 2013 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/soonerlawyer/vol2013/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the OU College of Law Archives at University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sooner Lawyer Archive by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ALUMNI INDUctED INTO Order OF THE Owl | BY Jessica R. Jones | 10PublishedSOONER by University L AW YERof Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2013 Michael Burrage Kathy Taylor Ralph G. Thompson Lee West n a night full of laughter and heartfelt tributes, the University of Oklahoma College of Law had the privilege of inducting four distinguished alumni into the Order of the Owl Hall of Fame. Michael Burrage (’74), Kathy Taylor (’81), Ralph G. Thompson (‘61) and the Lee West (’56) became the third class of inductees honored Iat an October 30 dinner in the Molly Shi Boren Ballroom of Oklahoma Memorial Union. The Order of the Owl recognizes OU Law graduates who have made an indelible mark on the legal profession. The honorees are chosen based on their demonstrated leadership and service through outstanding accomplishments in their careers. -
British Statutes in American Jurisdictions 197
December, 1929 BRITISH STATUITES IN AMERICAN JURISDICTIONS FREDERICKI G. MCKEAN, JR. The abstraction called the Law is a magic mirror wherein we see reflected not only our own lives, but the lives of all men that have been.-Attributed to Mr. Jus- tice Holmes. It has been said that man differs from other animals chiefly in this: that he retains in each generation that which has been handed down by its predecessor,, and, after applying the touchstone of experience, passes it to his successors. This commonplace has been phrased in the folk saying, "Experience is the best teacher", and in the legal aphorism that "the life of the law has been-experi- ence". An outstanding characteristic of the founding of this re- public was the tenacity with which our forefathers clung to their inheritance of the laws which their immigrant ancestors brought into the New World and adapted to the requirements of changed environment. John Adams is credited with the statement that he would not have taken the stand that he did in the War for Inde- pendence, if such action had involved the loss of the common law. Chief Justice Taft says, "We embodied in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution the principles of the British Constitution as they had. been established at the Common Law."' At the threshold of the Revolution the American Continental Congress of 1774, under the presidency of George Washington, adopted this resolution: "Resolved, N. C. D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more espe- cially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law. -
Proceedings Honoring Judge William J. Holloway, Jr., on Thirty Years
OCULREV Spring 2015 61 0420 Thirty Years Proceedings 247--276 (Do Not Delete) 4/20/2015 2:50 PM 2015] Proceedings Honoring Thirty Years Service as Judge 247 In the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma Proceedings Honoring Honorable William J. Holloway, Jr. On Thirty Years’ Service as Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1968–1998 5:00 p.m. September 25, 1998 Ceremonial Courtroom Third Floor United States Courthouse Fourth and Robinson Oklahoma City, Oklahoma [Editor’s note: Reprinted from 51 F. Supp. 2d LI (1998).] OCULREV Spring 2015 61 0420 Thirty Years Proceedings 247--276 (Do Not Delete) 4/20/2015 2:50 PM 248 Oklahoma City University Law Review [Vol. 40 Oklahom Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Top: 30th Anniversary Proceeding with Chief Judge Stephanie Seymour, presiding. Bottom: Gift from Oklahoma City University to express the great admiration held for Judge Holloway as a distinguished jurist and the University’s deep affection for Judge Holloway and his faithful friendship. OCULREV Spring 2015 61 0420 Thirty Years Proceedings 247--276 (Do Not Delete) 4/20/2015 2:50 PM 2015] Proceedings Honoring Thirty Years Service as Judge 249 Proceedings CHIEF JUDGE SEYMOUR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this extraordinary session of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. We are here today to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the appointment of Judge William J. Holloway to our court, who until about two minutes ago thought he was coming to an administrative meeting. We are honoring the affection and respect of our colleague and friend, for whom we have the highest regard. -
New Trends in Conflicts Rules Affecting Torts: a Chronological Review Richard V
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 1 Article 2 Issue 2 Spring 1970 1970 New Trends in Conflicts Rules Affecting Torts: A Chronological Review Richard V. Carpenter Prof. of Law, Hastings University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons Recommended Citation Richard V. Carpenter, New Trends in Conflicts Rules Affecting Torts: A Chronological Review, 1 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 187 (1970). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol1/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL Volume 1, Number 2, Summer 1970 New Trends in Conflicts Rules Affecting Torts: A Chronological Review Richaid V. Carpenter* Around the turn of the century a Texas switchman named Slater was killed in Mexico due to the negligence of his employer, a Colorado corporation which operated a railroad from Texas to Mexico City. The switchman's widow and children, all citizens and residents of Texas, brought a diversity action in the federal court in Texas against the railroad for damages. On appeal, the Supreme Court, in Slater v. Mexican National R.R. Co.,' held that the Mexican remedy, support and pensions during necessity or until marriage, was beyond the power of the Federal courts to grant. The trial court attempted to substitute a common law remedy in the form of lump sum damages based on a jury verdict but on appeal the judgment was reversed and the action ordered dismissed.