Anderson v. O'Donoghue

25 Citing cases

  1. Sierra Club Inc. v. Corp. Comm'n of Okla. (In re Okla. Gas & Elec. Co.)

    2018 OK 31 (Okla. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    GlobeLife&Acc. Ins. Co. v. OklahomaTaxComm'n, 1996 OK 39, ¶ 15, 913 P.2d 1322 ; Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 1983 OK 76, ¶ 9, 677 P.2d 648.GlobeLife&Acc.

  2. Smith v. Marshall

    885 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 10 times
    In Smith v. Marshall, 885 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1989), a medical malpractice suit against a physician practicing in Italy, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the physician, substitution of the United States as party defendant, and subsequent dismissal of the case.

    If section 1089(a) gives military physicians total immunity, section 1089(f)'s indemnification provisions are virtually meaningless. See Newman v. Soballe, 871 F.2d 969, 974 (11th Cir. 1989); Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648, 651 (Okla. 1983); cf. Jackson v. Kelly, 557 F.2d 735, 740 (10th Cir. 1977) (en banc). We must interpret section 1089 as a whole and try to give full effect to all of its subsections.

  3. In re Jones

    804 F.2d 1133 (10th Cir. 1986)   Cited 21 times

    (Tr. III, 643). We believe the cases of Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648 (Okla. 1983), and Radford-Shelton and Associates Dental Laboratory, Inc. v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., 569 P.2d 506 (Okla.Ct.App. 1976) (published by order of Okla.Ct.App.), are persuasive. In Anderson the Oklahoma Supreme Court found no error in the manner in which the trial court applied § 832(H).

  4. Wilson v. Al McCord Inc.

    611 F. Supp. 621 (W.D. Okla. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    The exclusion cannot be interpreted to apply only to transactions between parties in the oil and gas industry, because such an interpretation would render the exclusion meaningless, mere surplus language. See Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648, 651 (Okla. 1983) ("Statutes must be construed to give meaning to each portion thereof . . ."). Cf. Cowart v. Piper Air-craft Corp., 665 P.2d 315, 317 (Okla. 1983) ("It is presumed that each portion . . . was intended to be operative and not surplus language.").

  5. Farris v. Masquelier

    2022 OK 91 (Okla. 2022)   Cited 2 times
    In Farris v. Masquelier, 2022 OK 91, ¶13, 524 P.3d 942, 948, we held that an issue is still reviewable for fundamental error even when no exception has been taken.

    To preserve that error for review here, Capshaw must have excepted to the blank verdict form at the pre-submission stage of the case, i.e., simultaneously with exceptions to jury instructions." Id. See also Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 1983 OK 76, ¶ 12, 677 P.2d 648, 652 (Absent proper objections, review on appeal is limited to erroneous statements of fundamental law appearing on the face of the instructions given).

  6. Price v. SWBT Co.

    1991 OK 50 (Okla. 1991)   Cited 29 times

    In its petition for certiorari, Southwestern urges review and withdrawal of the appellate court's opinion for it disregards the unambiguous language of § 832, and is inconsistent with settled precedent, See National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. A.A.R. Western Skyways, Inc., 784 P.2d 52 (Okla. 1989) and Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648 (Okla. 1983). Finally, Southwestern contends that the summary decision creates an interdivisional conflict among opinions of the courts of appeals.

  7. Lee v. Cotten

    793 P.2d 1369 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    1981)." Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648, 652 (Okla. 1983); see also, Croy v. Bacon Transport Co., 604 P.2d 136 (Okla. 1979); Taylor v. Scott, 167 Okla. 588, 32 P.2d 48 (1934). Under these standards, we have reviewed the record and the Trial Court's instructions to the jury.

  8. Newman v. Soballe

    871 F.2d 969 (11th Cir. 1989)   Cited 19 times
    In Newman, this court concluded that the Liability Reform Act does not immunize a federal employee from liability when the FTCA precludes recovery against the government.

    Such a "solution" is no solution at all. In fact, the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648 (Okl. 1983) retained jurisdiction over a malpractice suit where the military physician committed malpractice while on civilian assignment. The court specifically held "that a suit against a military physician individually is proper where the facts disclose the case is brought under the conditions described in [subsection (f)]. . . . Inasmuch as the suit may be brought against the physician individually, the action may properly be brought against the appellant in state court."

  9. Parker v. O'Rion Industries, Inc.

    769 F.2d 647 (10th Cir. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    Denying prejudgment interest under Oklahoma law for the period of delay caused by plaintiff

    Consequently, the district court in this case had an affirmative duty to reduce plaintiff's tort judgment by the settlement obtained from the joint tortfeasor, Canadian Valley, rather than permit the jury to do this. Cf. Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648, 653 (Okla. 1983) ("The trial judge properly deducted the amount of settlement from the verdict before arriving at the judgment amount.") II

  10. Perry v. U.S.

    936 F. Supp. 867 (S.D. Ala. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    In Perry v. United States, 936 F. Supp. 867 (S.D.Ala. 1996), the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action in state court against an Air Force physician.

    Plaintiff cites several other cases in support of her contention that Captain Moore was not acting within the scope of his federal employment at the time of the alleged incident. See Anderson v. O'Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648 (Ok. 1983); Newman v. Soballe, supra; Burchfield v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 516 F. Supp. 1301 (D.Col. 1981); and Bass v. Parsons, 577 F. Supp. 944 (S.D.W.V. 1984). All of these cases were decided before the Supreme Court's ruling in Smith, and use the same or similar rationale found in Afonso, detailing the legislative history of the Gonzalez Act.