174 search results for query *

Summary: 410 F. Supp. Kochhar v. Auburn University, 304 F. Supp. Plaintiff asserts the Complaint satisfies the elements of a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as set out in Marshall v. Sawyer, 301 F.2d 639 (Ninth Cir. In order to establish civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the other Defendants, Plaintiff relies on the following holding from the case of Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426 (Ninth Cir. The standards to be applied in ruling on whether this Court has more.

Summary: 4 F. Supp. Subsequently, on September 30, 1996, a formal charge of discrimination was filed by Ingram with the EEOC claiming sex and age discrimination against Pre-Paid with respect to a denial of promotion and discharge. AT & T, 22 F.3d 1527, 1529 (10th Cir.)Applied Genetics v. First Affiliated Securities, 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir.1990). Thomas v. IBM, 48 F.3d 478, 486 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505). Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 more.

Summary: 443 F. Supp. Mr. Reeves, vice-president of drilling and production for Dyco, contacted Grover Pool, Tulsa city salesman for the defendant and told him in the latter part of December or in early January that Dyco would need 3½" drill pipe. Dyco intended to rent the 3½ drill pipe from the defendant and Reeves told Pool that he wanted to rent drill pipe which was classified as premium. Reeves also talked to Mr. Lamborn, with Unit, some two weeks prior to the time the 3½" drill pipe was needed and more.

Summary: 497 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (2007) Patrick Dwayne MURPHY, Petitioner, v. Marty SIRMONS, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent. Kristi L. Christopher, Scott W. Braden, Lisa S. McCalmont, Randy A. Bauman, Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, OK, for Petitioner. Petitioner Patrick Dwayne Murphy was convicted following a jury trial in the District Court of McIntosh County, Case No. CF-1999-164A, of First Degree Murder in violation of 21 O.S. Supp.1996, § 701.7(A). On direct appeal, the more.

Summary: 71 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (1999) Kenneth WOOTEN; and Kristi Wooten, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Richard Clay HUDSON, D.O., an individual; Creek Nation Community Hospital; Okfuskee County Hospital Authority; Emcare, Inc.; The Quantum Group, Inc.; The Gould Group, Inc.; and United States of America, Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on the Petition and Brief for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(3) filed by Defendants on October 13, 1998 (Docket Entry # 71) to which a timely response more.

Summary: 245 F. Supp. Defendant, Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc. ("KBR"), has filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims and to stay this action pending compliance with its Dispute Resolution Program ("DRP").In opposition to KBR's motion, Plaintiffs contend the court should not enforce the arbitration provisions of the DRP because (1) the DRP is illusory and (2) there is an absence of proof as to Plaintiffs' agreement to arbitrate. See Coors Brewing Co. v. Molson Breweries, 51 F.3d 1511, more.

Summary: 663 F. Supp. 258 (1987) Austin WALKER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Todd Henshaw, Jim F. Gassaway, Tulsa, Okl., Bill Wilson, Sapulpa, Okl., Harold M. Shultz, Muskogee, Okl., W.C. Bill Sellers, Paul McBride, Sapulpa, Okl., Patrick A. Williams, Tulsa, Okl., Roger Hilfiger, U.S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl., John Mantooth, Elder, Mantooth & Haxel, Purcell, Okl., for defendant. Plaintiff Austin Walker brings this action against the United States of America alleging negligence under more.

Summary: 661 F. Supp. *1241 Joseph F. Clark, Jr., Clark & Warzynski, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff. Plaintiff Wilsey Eaton ("Mr. Eaton"), filed this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) for determination of entitlement to disability benefits under an employee sponsored disability plan underwritten and administered by defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("Metropolitan"). By letter of June 28, 2004, Metropolitan approved Mr. Eaton for long term disability benefits. The letter granting more.

Summary: 630 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (2009) UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, v. Dirk KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. On September 30, 2008, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians *1298 in Oklahoma ("UKB") filed this lawsuit which Plaintiff describes as: [A]n action by the Tribe seeking a declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated their statutory requirement (1) to obtain the Tribe's authorization prior to entering a contract for health more.

Summary: 67 F. Supp. The Cherokee Nation instituted this federal court action against NationsBank, N.A. ("the Bank"), contesting garnishment proceedings brought in state and tribal court by various judgment creditors. The Cherokee Nation seeks damages for the alleged wrongful garnishments and an order from this court staying the release of funds from its account with the Bank. Having considered the evidence and arguments submitted, the court concludes that the Cherokee Nation's complaint with respect to more.

Summary: 449 F. Supp. 1976); Congaree Broadcasters, Inc. v. TM Programming, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 702; McLeod v. Cities Service Gas Co., 10 Cir., 233 F.2d 242, 245-246; and Woerter v. Orr, 10 Cir., 127 F.2d 969, 971; cf. Ronzio, supra, 116 F.2d 604, 605.

Summary: 832 F. Supp. In the instant case, a diversity action, plaintiff Nylan Eldridge asserts multiple claims of negligence against the defendant for damages sustained as a result of an automobile and train collision occurring on May 4, 1992, at a crossing in Atoka County, Oklahoma. [1] Before the court for its consideration is the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the following issues: 1) the adequacy of the locomotive warning devices; 2) the reasonableness of the train's speed; and more.

Summary: 691 F. Supp. 1280 (1986) LONE STAR STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, and its Local Union No. 9313, Defendants. Now before the Court for disposition on issues of liability are the consolidated cases, Nos. 75-92-C and 79-36-C, brought by plaintiff, Lone Star Steel Company, against defendants, the United Mine Workers of America and Local 9313 of the United Mine Workers of America. In Number 75-92-C, Lone Star seeks damages pursuant to § 303 of the Labor Management more.

Summary: (2008) Shannon MURCHISON, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. On February 15, 2008, Plaintiff served Defendant with her Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff. Defendant's counsel of record avers that he received Plaintiff's Responses on February 18, 2008. Plaintiff's response to Defendant's fifth request for admission reads: Plaintiff objects to this Request on the basis that it violates the Oklahoma pleading more.

Summary: 386 F. Supp. Plaintiff complains that the prison Disciplinary Court did not afford him due process when he was sentenced in said Court in February, 1971 to administrative segregation for a violation of the prison rules and that said Defendants denied Plaintiff access to the Courts while so confined in administrative segregation.

Summary: 114 F. Supp. *526 *527 *528 Bohanon & Adams, Oklahoma City, Okl., George I. Haight, Chicago, Ill., R. F. Campbell, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff. C. M. McKnight, Tulsa, Okl., and Robert F. Davis, Stevens, Davis, Miller and Mosher, Washington, D. C., for defendant. The plaintiff, Hughes Tool Company, a Delaware corporation, brings this action against the defendant, R. W. Ford, a resident of Ada, Oklahoma, to: (1) Enjoin the defendant from future infringement and to recover damages for past more.

Summary: 438 F. Supp. 1015 (1977) William C. LIEB, Jr., d/b/a AAA Exterminators, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Plaintiff claims that the telephone solicitors, who contact potential customers in order to determine their need for plaintiff's services, and the exterminators who perform the pest control and extermination services, in connection with plaintiff's exterminating business, are independent contractors rather than employees. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that both more.