1010 search results for query *

Summary: 639 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (2009) Ernest DILLMAN, Plaintiff, v. Bill WINCHESTER, as Sheriff of Garfield County, and The Board of County Commissioners for the County of Garfield, State of Oklahoma, a political subdivision of the State of Oklahoma, Defendants. He also asserts a pendent state tort claim, pursuant to Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla.1989), alleging that his termination violated Oklahoma public policy. MacKenzie v. City & County of Denver, 414 F.3d 1266, 1273 (10th Cir.2005). Adler more.

Summary: 472 F. Supp. The plaintiff commenced this action under 15 U.S.C. § 754(a)(1) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 ("EPAA") against defendant Department of Energy ("DOE") for declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside a Remedial Order and Appeal Decision and Order issued by the Federal Energy Administration ("FEA") to plaintiff Bonray Oil Company ("Bonray"). Plaintiff Bonray alleges that the FEA Order was in excess of statutory authority in that the FEA allegedly possesses no more.

Summary: 693 F. Supp. Simon, who had a long and troubled history of mental treatment by the Veterans Administration following his release from military service, committed suicide subsequent to the stabbing incident involving plaintiff. The substance of Plaintiff's contentions is that the Veterans Administration (1) knew of Simon's dangerous propensities, (2) was aware of a recent assault made by Simon upon another individual just prior to the stabbing incident involving Lindsey, and (3) despite this more.

Summary: 396 F. Supp. 1951); Tyree v. Smith, 289 F. Supp. 1968); and Armstrong v. Board of Education of City of Birmingham, Ala., 220 F. Supp. The above cases are clearly distinguishable in that the individuals whose rights were allegedly violated were alive; indeed, Tyree v. Smith, supra, was so distinguished recently by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a survival action, Hall v. Wooten, 506 F.2d 564 (1974). 1961); Holmes v. Silver Cross Hospital of Joliet, Illinois, 340 F. Supp. 125 (N. more.

Summary: 504 F. Supp. 1130 (1981) Stephen O. JENKS and Marilyn Jenks, Plaintiffs, v. Ballard HILL; John Hill; Harmon Electric Association, Inc.; Western Farmers Electric Cooperative; and John Deere Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. Security National Bank, 619 F.2d at 848-49; Riggs v. British Commonwealth Corp., 459 F.2d 449, 451 (10th Cir. The third basis offered by Western Farmers as grounds for summary judgment is that Western Farmers is not liable for any negligence of Harmon Electric in more.

Summary: 556 F. Supp. Like the Court in Hamlin v. Kelley, 433 F. Supp. In Providence Journal Co. v. FBI, 460 F. Supp. 2d 752 (incorrectly cited by Defendants), the Court merely held that the case would go forward only against the Department of Justice because "the extent of relief to be afforded in this case does not depend on the presence of the other named defendants ..." Similarly, see Ott v. Levi, 419 F. Supp. Exemption 5 is roughly analogous, though not identical, to the rules of discovery, Mead more.

Summary: 512 F. Supp. In the single count of his complaint, plaintiff asserts that he has been denied due process of law by not being required to serve the first year of the two-year sentences imposed by the Oklahoma County District Court immediately upon their entry. The provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, originally enacted as a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, are in material part as follows: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or more.

Summary: 237 F. Supp. Before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant United States of America and Plaintiff Minnie Mae Luttrell on Plaintiff's Complaint *1294 brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). See, e.g., Domme v. United States, 61 F.3d 787, 789 (10th Cir. Given the discretion granted to the Warden in BOP P.S. 5538.04, it must be presumed that his decision that two escorts would accompany and remain with Inmate Bolain while he more.

Summary: 406 F. Supp. Dorothy FRAZIER and Ruth Rattler, on their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Stanley K. HATHAWAY, Individually and in his capacity as Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America, Defendant, The Delaware Tribe of Indians et al., Intervenors. 861, 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 1181-1186, determines the Indian descendants who may participate in the distribution of an Indian Claims Commission award redressing a wrong by the United States under an more.

Summary: 896 F. Supp. Co., 47 F.3d 350 (9th Cir.1995) (citing University of Maryland v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 923 F.2d 265, 272 (3rd Cir.1991); Fragoso v. Lopez, 991 F.2d 878, 882 (1st Cir.1993); Costle v. Fremont Indem. Co., 839 F. Supp. Co., 784 F. Supp. In Todd v. DSN Dealer Service Network, Inc., 861 F. Supp.

Summary: 76 B.R. 822 (1987) In re Juel SWEATTE, Debtor. (i) The record indicates that, prior to July, 1982, Juel and Ruth Elaine Sweatte, the debtors, and Kelly and Gerald Sieber, the Sweattes' daughter and son-in-law, were indebted to the appellee the American Exchange Bank and Trust Company (the Bank) in the principal amount of $961,034.46. The mortgage stated that it was "taken to secure all loans with All American Cars, Inc., Juel and Elaine Sweatte, and Gerald and Kelly Sieber."Juel Sweatte and more.

Summary: 948 F. Supp. Because the Court finds that the uninsured motorist policy did not cover the plaintiffs' claim, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant's motion is granted. See Wagner & Brown v. Ward Petroleum Corp., 876 F. Supp. v. Sanders, 803 P.2d 688 (Okla.1990), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma identified a four-part test to determine whether uninsured motorist coverage applies to a particular injury: 1. Co., Inc., 83 F.3d 349, 351 (10th Cir.1996) (citing Safeco; Byus v. more.

Summary: 394 F. Supp. 963 (1975) Eleanor Gray KNUDSON, Plaintiff, v. Donald W. WEEKS et al., Defendants. Henry F. Featherly, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Hughes. On May 10, 1970 Plaintiff contracted to purchase the house from its builder, Defendant Donald W. Weeks. An error was made in the survey as it failed to disclose that the house at 6008 Queens Gate encroached over the rear lot line of Lot 5, Block 4 of Lansbrook Addition. The sale of the house from Defendant Weeks to Plaintiff was consummated on June more.

Summary: 550 F. Supp. After exhausting their state court remedies, Plaintiffs brought this action wherein they seek injunctive relief restraining the Court of Appeals and its judges from issuing the mandate in Case No. 50,553 and the City Council of Oklahoma City (City Council) from issuing the permit for the landfill pursuant to the order of the Court of Appeals and a declaration that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is void. In this connection, Plaintiffs contend in essence that the Oklahoma more.

Published Opinion | Federal District, Federal, | District Court Wd Oklahoma | cited by: 1 Primary Sources | citing: 8
Summary: 956 F. Supp. Kurt F. Ockershauser, Fred A. Gipson, Joseph Harroz, Jr., Lisa Millington, Jill Bush Raines, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, Susan Gail Seamans, University of OK Health Science Center, Legal Counsel Office, Oklahoma City, OK, for David Boren. Representative Peary brought to President Boren's attention that material which he considered clearly obscene was available in news groups that were carried on OU's news server. According to the testimony of President Boren, news groups more.

Summary: 108 F. Supp. See Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene, 190 F.3d 1135, 1144-46 (10th Cir.1999).Respondent argues that the Magistrate Judge's reliance on Rodriguez-Fernandez v. Wilkinson, 654 F.2d 1382 (10th Cir.1981) was in error, noting that other circuits have declined to follow Rodriguez-Fernandez. Respondent also contends that the Magistrate Judge's reliance on Tam v. INS, 14 F. Supp. Finally, this court concurs with the reasoning of the United States District Court for the Western District of more.

Summary: 714 F. Supp. Plaintiff's action is for breach of contract by refusal to pay benefits under a life insurance policy insuring the life of Curtis Coye Dennis (hereinafter "Dennis"), on which policy plaintiff was the beneficiary, and for tortious breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by unexcused *1582 delay in denying plaintiff's claim under the policy. Two issues are presented by this motion: (1) whether a jury could reasonably find that defendant wrongfully denied plaintiff's more.