Amos v. Spiro Public Schools

20 Citing cases

  1. Baker v. Darr Equipment Co.

    233 P.3d 419 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010)

    ¶ 9 The worker's compensation trial court's legal ruling on these undisputed facts is reviewed by a de novo standard. Amos v. Spiro Public Schools, 2004 OK 4, ¶ 5, 85 P.3d 813, 815. Further, we apply the law in effect at the time of Claimant's injury.

  2. Okla. Goodwill Indus. v. State ex rel Okla. Empl. Sec. Comm

    2008 OK 48 (Okla. 2008)

    This court is utterly free to choose sua sponte its own framework of dispositive legal problem-solving techniques (theories and remedial avenues) to arrive at the most appropriate answer. Yeatman v. Northern Oklahoma Resource Center of Enid, 2004 OK 27, § 5, 89 P.3d 1095, 1101 (when resolving a public-law question, we are free to choose sua sponte the dispositive public-law theory although the wrong one is advanced); Amos v. Spiro Public Schools, 2004 OK 4, §, 85 P.3d 813, 816; Schulte Oil Co., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, supra note 13 at §, 882 P.2d at 69; Davis v. B.F. Goodrich, 1992 OK 14, §, 826 P.2d 587, 592-93 (Opala, C.J., concurring); Reynolds v. Special Indemnity Fund, 1986 OK 64, § 4, 725 P.2d 1265, 1270; Special Indemnity Fund v. Reynolds, 1948 OK 14, §, 188 P.2d 841, 842. ¶ 8 For the reasons to be explained in Parts V and VII(C) infra, the theory interposed by OESC, if resolved in the agency's favor, would be dispositive of this controversy.

  3. Parret v. Unicco Service Co.

    2005 OK 54 (Okla. 2005)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that plaintiffs could sue in tort when the employer " desired to bring about the worker's injury or acted with the knowledge that such injury was substantially certain to result from the employer's conduct."

    No party is ever called upon to raise its immunity from liability against a claim of another which is nonactionable.Amos v. Spiro Public Schools, 2004 OK 4, ¶ 7, 85 P.3d 813, 816 (citing Special Indemnity Fund v. Reynolds, 1948 OK 14, ¶ 5, 188 P.2d 841, 842); Reynolds v. Special Indemn. Fund, 1986 OK 64, ¶ 14, 725 P.2d 1265, 1270; National Gypsum Co. v. Brewster, 1969 OK 185, ¶ 22, 461 P.2d 593, 596.

  4. Shepard v. Okla. Dep't of Corr.

    2015 OK 8 (Okla. 2015)   Cited 13 times

    An issue involving the existence of a legislative intent to make a statute retroactive is a question of law examined de novo and independently of the trial tribunal's ruling.Hillcrest Med. Center v. Powell, 2013 OK 1, ¶ 6, 295 P.3d 13, 15 (Issue whether the law in effect at the time of the injury applies or whether a subsequently-enacted law applies presents a question of law subject to de novo review); Amos v. Spiro Public Schools, 2004 OK 4, ¶ 5, 85 P.3d 813, 815 (A compensation tribunal's legal rulings stand on review subject to an appellate court's plenary, independent and nondeferential reexamination.). II.

  5. Oklahoma Goodwill Industries, Inc. v. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission

    219 P.3d 540 (Okla. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    When confronting a matter of public law, this court may grant corrective relief on any applicable legal theory dispositive of the case and supported by the record. Schulte Oil Co., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, 1994 OK 10.3, ¶ 7, 882 P.2d 65, 69 (a question of tax liability presents a public-law controversy); Yeatman v. Northern Oklahoma Resource Center of Enid, 2004 OK 27, ¶ 15, 89 P.3d 1095, 1101 (when resolving a public-law question, we are free to choose sua sponte the dispositive public-law theory although the wrong one is advanced); Amos v. Spiro Public Schools, 2004 OK 4, ¶ 7, 85 P.3d 813, 816. ¶ 2 As I analyze the record before us, the sole issue that is dispositive of the case and must be reached here is whether Oklahoma Goodwill Industries (Goodwill or taxpayer) presented below a stale claim that is barred by laches and estoppel for Goodwill's failure to raise the issue within a reasonable time after the taxpayer first knew or should have known that the tax stood imposed by those in authority.

  6. Lang v. Erlanger Tubular Corp.

    2009 OK 17 (Okla. 2009)   Cited 13 times
    Holding the three-year bar of § 43(C) was not subject to tolling by an employer's provision of medical treatment

    A worker's quest to receive compensation for an on-the-job injury is a statutory public-law proceeding, not a private dispute. Yeatman v. Northern Oklahoma Resource Center of Enid., 2004 OK 27, ¶ 15, 89 P.3d 1095; Amos v. Spiro Public Schools, 2004 OK 4, ¶ 7, 85 P.3d 813 (citing Special Indemnity Fund v. Reynolds, 1948 OK 14, ¶ 5, 188 P.2d 841, 842); National Gypsum Co. v. Brewster, 1969 OK 185, ¶ 22, 461 P.2d 593, 596. When resolving a public-law question, we are free to choose sua sponte the dispositive public-law theory although the wrong one is advanced.

  7. Trust Fund v. Wade

    2008 OK 15 (Okla. 2008)   Cited 15 times

    ¶ 24 We begin our inquiry with the observation that the time restriction on requesting a hearing in § 43(B) is not a limitation on bringing the "action" like the limitation in § 43(A). Amos v. Spiro Public Schools, 2004 OK 4, ¶ 3, n. 7, 85 P.3d 813, 815, n. 7. The time restriction in § 43(B) fixes the time period for requesting a hearing on a timely-filed claim. Id., It is a time restriction designed to protect both the employer and the claimant.

  8. Shorter v. Tulsa Used Equipment

    2006 OK 72 (Okla. 2006)   Cited 7 times

    When resolving a public-law question, we are free to choose sua sponte the dispositive public-law theory although the wrong one is advanced. Amos v. Spiro Public Schools, 2004 OK 4, ¶ 7, 85 P.3d 813, 816 (citing Special Indemnity Fund v. Reynolds, 1948 OK 14, ¶ 5, 188 P.2d 841, 842).Dominic, supra note 21, at ¶ 13 at 939.

  9. Jacobs Ranch, L.L.C. v. Smith

    2006 OK 34 (Okla. 2006)   Cited 35 times
    In Smith itself, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the Alaska sex offender registration act was not punitive and could be applied retroactively.

    Even though intervenors made this assertion in the context of pressing another theory, in publiclaw litigation this court is duty-bound to supply the correct legal norm. If this fact issue be resolved in intervenors' favor, it would be dispositive of plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief. Amos v. Spiro Public Schools, 2004 OK 4, ¶ 7, 85 P.3d 813, 816. ¶ 3 Standing, which presents here a threshold question, cannot be "'inferred argumentatively from averments in the pleadings' but rather 'must affirmatively appear in the record.'"

  10. King Mfg. v. Meadows

    2005 OK 78 (Okla. 2005)   Cited 38 times
    In King Manufacturing v. Meadows, see note 2, supra the Court held that when the injury is a change in condition rather than a new injury, the statute in effect at the time of the initial injury governs.

    "Benefits for an injury shall be determined by the law in effect at the time of the injury; benefits for death shall be determined by the law in effect at the time of death."Amos v. Spiro Public Schools, 2004 OK 4, ¶ 10, 85 P.3d 813; Batt v. Special Indemnity Fund, 1993 OK 163, ¶ 9, 865 P.2d 1244; Special Indemnity Fund v. Archer, 1993 OK 14, ¶ 9, 847 P.2d 791; Knott v. Halliburton Services, 1988 OK 29, ¶ 4, 752 P.2d 812.Batt v. Special Indemnity Fund, see note 13, supra; Knott v. Halliburton Services, see note 13, supra; Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. v. Wilson, 1980 OK 48, ¶ 7, 609 P.2d 777.