Cole v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Jones v. Jones

    548 P.3d 483 (Okla. Civ. App. 2024)

    [6] ¶27 Whether an individual’s due process rights have been violated is a question of law reviewed de novo, "meaning they are subject to an appellate court’s plenary, independent, and nondeferential reexamination." Cole v. State ex rel. Depl. of Pub. Safety, 2020 OK 67, ¶ 6, 473 P.3d 467. ANALYSIS

  2. In re Marriage of Jones

    2024 OK Civ. App. 12 (Okla. Civ. App. 2023)

    STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶27 Whether an individual's due process rights have been violated is a question of law reviewed de novo, "meaning they are subject to an appellate court's plenary, independent, and nondeferential re-examination." Cole v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2020 OK 67, ¶ 6, 473 P.3d 467. ANALYSIS

  3. In re Amendment to 12 O.S. CH. 15

    2023 OK 55 (Okla. 2023)

    Fulsom v. Fulsom, 2003 OK 96, ¶ 2. Cole v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2020 OK 67, ¶5, 473 P.3d 467, 475, (Gurich, J. with whom Kauger joins dissenting.)

  4. Terral Tel. Co. v. Okla. State Bd. of Equalization

    2023 OK 51 (Okla. 2023)

    When a rule irreconcilably conflicts with a statute the provisions of the statute shall prevail. Ark. La. Gas Co. v. Travis, 1984 OK 33, ¶7, 682 P.2d 225, 227; Cole v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2020 OK 67, ¶5, 473 P.3d 467, 475 (Gurich, C.J. dissenting)("When a rule or regulation conflicts with a statutory enactment, the statute prevails."). Therefore, the statutory twenty (20) day period from the date of the preparation of the notice of assessment, which is required to be clearly listed on the notice of assessment, is the date from which the period to file a complaint commences and TTC failed to comply with this jurisdictional requirement.

  5. W. Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. The State ex rel., Okla. State Dep't of Educ

    2022 OK 79 (Okla. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    . Cole v. State ex. rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2020 OK 67, ¶ 15, 473 P.3d 467, 472. ¶75 These principles are important to the controversy for two reasons: (1) A procedural due process violation is based upon the absence or inadequacy of State procedure for the legal interest, and (2) Equity will not be used to thwart an adequate, clear, and certain statutory remedy which was not sought by a party possessing a statutory right enforceable by the statutory remedy.

  6. Currington v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety

    504 P.3d 1158 (Okla. Civ. App. 2021)

    The trial court determined that Currington's due process rights were violated by DPS. The question of whether an individual has been denied due process is reviewed de novo . Cole v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety , 2020 OK 67, ¶ 6, 473 P.3d 467, 470. De novo review involves a plenary, independent and non-deferential re-examination of the trial court's rulings.

  7. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Tex. Cnty. v. State ex. rel. Office of Juvenile Affairs

    502 P.3d 188 (Okla. Civ. App. 2021)

    ¶14 The Board argues that its right to due process was violated by the trial court. Typically, the question of whether due process rights were violated in the context of an appeal from an individual proceeding is reviewed de novo.Cole v. State Dept. of Public Safety , 2020 OK 67, ¶6, 473 P.3d 467, 470. In this case, however, the Board complains that the trial court erred when it permitted OJA to present a witness during the hearing on August 31, 2020, and also when the trial court entertained OJA's renewed Motions to Dismiss during that hearing.