Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hamrick v. STATE EX REL. OFFICE OF EX REL. CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 21, 2011No. 109,249Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

WATT, J.,

with whom KAUGER, J. joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

1 1 I agree with the majority's determination that an unclassified employee can maintain an action pursuant to the Protection of Labor Act (Labor Protection Act), 40 0.8. 2001 165.1 et seq. I express no opinion on whether the same employee may be entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to 40 O.S. 2001 165.9 1 allowing an employee to recover both unpaid wages and liquidated damages. I dissent on two grounds. First, the majority has not merely "reformulated" the question but has gone outside of the question certified…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ball v. Wilshire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2009
  2. Walton, Mayor v. DonnellySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  3. Scott v. PetersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
  4. KNIGHT EX REL. ELLIS v. MillerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
  5. Tulsa County Budget Board v. Tulsa County Excise BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API