Duncan v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections

31 Citing cases

  1. Paul v. State

    313 P.3d 292 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013)

    Questions of law are presented by issues of statutory interpretation and by the application of law to undisputed facts that reasonably admit of no contrary conclusion. See Duncan v. Okla. Dep't of Corr., 2004 OK 58, ¶ 3, 95 P.3d 1076, 1078 (statutory construction); and Seidenbach's v. Denney, 1943 OK 375, 193 Okla. 650, 146 P.2d 105 (court syllabus 2)(undisputed facts). Our review of issues of law is de novo, i.e., without deference to the lower court's determination.

  2. Knox v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co.

    2024 OK 37 (Okla. 2024)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Any provision, covenant, clause or understanding in a construction agreement that conflicts with the provisions and intent of this section or attempts to circumvent this section by making the agreement subject to the laws of another state, or that requires any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution proceeding arising from the agreement to be conducted in another state, is void and unenforceable. Duncan v. Okla. Dept. of Corrections, 2004 OK 58, ¶6, 95 P.3d 1076, 1079 (statutory construction explained for seemingly conflicting statutes). ¶34 In summary, SunPower's claims based upon a contractual indemnity and a third-party contact theory seek to impose negligence liability upon BJ's for a physical injury to Knox when the same injury was previously used as a compensable injury for a workers' compensation award.

  3. Cornett v. Carr

    302 P.3d 769 (Okla. 2013)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that Rule 9 of the Rules of the District Courts directly conflicted with 12 O.S. Supp. 2002 2004 to the extent it shortened a plaintiff's allocated time for service of summons

    ¶ 4 Whether a district court rule conflicts with a statute presents a purely legal question analyzed under the de novo standard of review. See Duncan v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections, 2004 OK 58, ¶ 3, 95 P.3d 1076, 1078. Thus, our examination of the case consists of a “non-deferential, plenary and independent review of” the lower court's rulings.

  4. Estate of Bell–Levine v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n

    293 P.3d 964 (Okla. 2012)   Cited 43 times

    Standard of Review ¶ 5 Whether the time limit of 68 O.S.2001 223(A) prohibits collection of outstanding income tax liability through a probate proceeding after passage of the ten-year limitations period presents a question of law which we review de novo. Duncan v. Okla. Dept. of Corrections, 2004 OK 58, ¶ 3, 95 P.3d 1076, 1078. Likewise, whether the terms of 68 O.S.2001 223(A) violate Article 5, § 53 of the Oklahoma Constitution by extinguishing a debt owed to the state, also presents a question of law, reviewable under the de novo standard. EOG Res. Mktg., Inc. v. Okla. State Bd. of Equalization, 2008 OK 95, ¶ 13, 196 P.3d 511, 518–19.

  5. Jones v. State ex re. Office of Juvenile Affairs

    2011 OK 105 (Okla. 2011)   Cited 15 times
    In Jones, plaintiff, a classified state employee who had been terminated based on an alleged drug policy violation, filed a civil suit against the State of Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs (“OJA”) asserting willful violation of the Workplace Act.

    Title 40 O.S. Supp.1993 §§ 552, 563. FN15. Atkinson v. Gurich 2011 OK 12, ¶ 14, 248 P.3d 356, 361, Duncan v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2004 OK 58, ¶ 6, 95 P.3d 1076, 1079, Milton v. Hayes, 1989 OK 12, ¶ 7, 770 P.2d 14, 15. FN16. Clifton v. Clifton, 1990 OK 88, ¶ 7, 801 P.2d 693, 696, Maule v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 9 of Tulsa Cnty., 1985 OK 110, ¶ 11, 714 P.2d 198, 203, Ledbetter v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Comm'n, 1988 OK 117, ¶ 7, 764 P.2d 172, 179.

  6. Atkinson v. Gurich

    2011 OK 12 (Okla. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    In the absence of a challenge to household personal property and a request by the taxpayer there can be no entry. Duncan v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2004 OK 58 ¶ 6, 95 P.3d 1076; Milton v. Hayes, 1989 OK 12 ¶ 7, 770 P.2d 14. Title 68 O.S. 2001 § 2818[ 68-2818], see note 2, supra.

  7. Burrell v. Burrell

    2007 OK 47 (Okla. 2007)   Cited 8 times

    Therefore, we reverse the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Boston Ave. Mgt., Inc. v. Associated Resources, Inc., 2007 OK 5, ¶ 11, 152 P.3d 880; Head v. McCracken, 2004 OK 84, ¶ 13, 102 P.3d 670; Duncan v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections, 2004 OK 58, ¶ 5, 95 P.3d 1076. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.

  8. Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp.

    2006 OK 47 (Okla. 2006)   Cited 50 times

    Words in a statute will be given their plain meaning if possible. Duncan v. Okla. Dept. of Corrections, 2004 OK 58, ¶ 5, 95 P.3d 1076, 1079. Oklahoma's common law protects the statutory right of oral argument.

  9. In re J.L.M

    2005 OK 15 (Okla. 2005)   Cited 24 times
    Finding a statute ambiguous in order to look at "public policy enunciated" in other jurisdictions as a basis for a finding of "legislative intent"

    See Westlake Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. Cornforth, 1996 OK CIV APP 159, 940 P.2d 1208, cert. denied Apr. 2, 1997. Second, it is a general statute and therefore does not control over the specific statute, 10 O.S. 7303-5.3(A)(8)(c). Duncan v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections, 2004 OK 58, ¶ 6, 95 P.3d 1076, 1079. Third, it was enacted in 1957; the specific statute was enacted in 1995; the more recent enactment controls over the earlier one.

  10. Mattingly Law Firm, P.C. v. Henson

    2020 OK Civ. App. 19 (Okla. Civ. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    "A legal question involving statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review . . . i.e., a non-deferential, plenary and independent review of the trial court's ruling." Id. (citing Duncan v. Okla. Dep't of Corrs., 2004 OK 58, ¶ 3, 95 P.3d 1076 (quoting Fulsom v. Fulsom, 2003 OK 96, ¶ 2, 81 P.3d 652)). We also consider whether the trial court properly applied the equitable doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.