State ex Rel. Macy v. Freeman

44 Citing cases

  1. Antini v. Antini (In re Marriage of Antini)

    2019 OK 20 (Okla. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    ¶ 14 The word "shall" expresses a command or a mandatory directive creating an unequivocal right that leaves no discretion with the court to deny it. Sooner Builders & Invs., Inc. v. Nolan Hatcher Constr. Servs., L.L.C., 2007 OK 50, ¶ 17, 164 P.3d 1063, 1069 (citing Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d 147, 153 ; Forest Oil v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, 1990 OK 58, ¶ 27, 807 P.2d 774, 787 ). The party that receives "the greatest affirmative judgment" is the prevailing party.

  2. Krug v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.

    2015 OK 74 (Okla. 2015)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that the PRSA was inapplicable to that case

    Oklahoma Ass'n for Equitable Taxation v. City of Oklahoma City, see note 10, supra; Haney v. State, 1993 OK 41, ¶ 5, 850 P.2d 1087; Public Serv. Co. of Oklahoma v. State ex rel. Corp. Comm'n, 1992 OK 153, ¶ 8, 842 P.2d 750.Oklahoma Ass'n for Equitable Taxation v. City of Oklahoma City, see note 10, supra; McSorley v. Hertz Corp., see note 10, supra; State ex rel. Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d 147.Oklahoma Ass'n for Equitable Taxation v. City of Oklahoma City, see note 10, supra; Oglesby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., see note 11, supra; Fuller v. Odom, 1987 OK 64, ¶ 4, 741 P.2d 449.

  3. Sooner v. Nolan Hatcher

    2007 OK 50 (Okla. 2007)   Cited 21 times
    Construing contract language providing for attorney fees to the prevailing party in any litigation concerning the contract

    Generally, the word "shall" expresses a command or a mandatory directive; "shall" is the equivalent of "must." Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d 147, 153"; Forest Oil v. Okla. Corporation Comm'n, 1990 OK 58, ¶ 27, 807 P.2d 774, 787. ¶ 18 In mandatory language similar to that used in the involved subcontracts, Oklahoma statutory law, 12 O.S.Supp.2002, § 936, gives the prevailing party in a civil action a right to recover attorney fees.

  4. Brown ex Rel. Brown v. Association

    2005 OK 88 (Okla. 2005)   Cited 22 times

    Nevertheless, the general rule is that the term signifies a command. United States through Farmers Home Admin. v. Hobbs, 1996 OK 77, ¶ 7, 921 P.2d 338; State ex rel. Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d 147; Forest Oil Corp. v. Corporation Comm'n, 1990 OK 58, ¶ 26, 807 P.2d 774. ¶ 7 Shawnee High School representatives protested Brown's suspension before the Association.

  5. Bd. of Examiners v. Thompson

    2004 OK 94 (Okla. 2005)   Cited 3 times
    In Thompson, we revoked the shorthand reporter's license for incomplete and inaccurate transcripts in a criminal case that could not be repaired.

    Nevertheless, the general rule is that the term signifies a command. United States through Farmers Home Admin. v. Hobbs, 1996 OK 77, ¶ 7, 921 P.2d 338; State ex rel. Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d 147; Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n, 1990 OK 58, ¶ 26, 807 P.2d 774. RELEVANT FACTS

  6. COX v. STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA DHS

    2004 OK 17 (Okla. 2004)   Cited 42 times
    In Cox v. State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services, 2004 OK 17, ¶ 1, 87 P.3d 607, we stated that the factual determination to uphold an employee's discharge was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantially competent evidence or arbitrary or capricious.

    Nevertheless, the statute does not impose a duty on the employer or agency to demonstrate that a lesser disciplinary action would be ineffective before any higher penalty is instituted. United States through Farmers Home Admin. v.Hobbs, 1996 OK 77, ¶ 7, 921 P.2d 338; Stateex rel.Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d 147; Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n, 1990 OK 58, ¶ 26, 807 P.2d 774.Minie v. Hudson, see note 35, supra; Texaco, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, 1980 OK 169, ¶ 9, 619 P.2d 869.

  7. Tulsa County Budget Board v. Tulsa County Excise Board

    2003 OK 103 (Okla. 2003)   Cited 19 times

    The Legislature has used clear and mandatory language in the statute stating that funding disputes shall be resolved by the Excise Board. Under the statute, the Tax Commission's role is limited to ensuring that — once the excise board has made a funding determination — amounts allocated by the excise board to the visual inspection program are used exclusively for the program's purpose and that funds so apportioned are not utilized to decrease the assessor's general obligation funds. Generally, when the Legislature uses the term "shall", it signifies a mandatory directive or command Keating v. Edmondson, see note 22 at ¶ 13, supra; United States through Farmers Home Admin. v.Hobbs, 1996 OK 77, ¶ 7, 921 P.2d 338; Stateex rel.Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d 147; Forest Oil Corp. v. Corporation Comm'n, 1990 OK 58, ¶ 26, 807 P.2d 774. Nevertheless, the term can be used permissively. Minnie v. Hudson, 1997 OK 26, ¶ 7, 934 P.2d 1082;Texaco, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, 1980 OK 169, ¶ 0, 619 P.2d 869.

  8. B. E. K. Constr. v. Abbott

    59 P.3d 38 (Okla. 2002)   Cited 22 times
    In Abbott, the Oklahoma Supreme Court did note with tacit approval the non-precedential determination made by the Court of Civil Appeals inTubbs that the employee's resignation "severed the employment relationship and the responsibility to pay [TTD] benefits."

    The use of "shall" generally signifies a legislative command. Davis v. GHS Health Maintenance, 2001 OK 3, ¶ 9; United States through Farmers Home Admin. v. Hobbs, 1996 OK 77, ¶ 7, 921 P.2d 338; State ex rel. Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d 147. Nevertheless, the term can be permissive. Minie v. Hudson, 1997 OK 26, ¶ 7, 934 P.2d 10-82; Texaco, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, 1980 OK 169, ¶ 9, 619 P.2d 869. Title 85 O.S. 2001 § 5[ 85-5] provides in pertinent part:

  9. Smith v. Baptist Foundation of Oklahoma

    2002 OK 57 (Okla. 2002)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that a claim was barred by laches where, through silence, the plaintiff acquiesced in the conduct he later sought to challenge

    The use of "shall" generally signifies a legislative command.Davis v. GHS Health Maintenance, 2001 OK 3, ¶ 9; United States through Farmers Home Admin. v. Hobbs, 1996 OK 77, ¶ 7, 921 P.2d 338;Stateex rel. Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d 147 . Nevertheless, the term can be permissive.

  10. Hathaway v. State Ex. Rel. Medical Research

    2002 OK 53 (Okla. 2002)   Cited 30 times
    In Hathaway, the state's highest court “held that when a lawsuit was filed before the expiration of the 90-day review period, the lawsuit was invalid” and “subject to dismissal.

    The use of "shall" generally signifies a legislative command. World Pub. Co. v. White, 2001 OK 48, ¶ 7, 32 P.3d 835; United States throughFarmers Home Admin. v. Hobbs, 1996 OK 77, ¶ 7, 921 P.2d 338; State ex rel. Macy v. Freeman, 1991 OK 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d 147; Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n, 1990 OK 58, ¶ 26, 807 P.2d 774 . Nevertheless, the term can be permissive.