Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Barker v. State Insurance Fund

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided November 7, 2001No. 93,154Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

KAUGER, J.,

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

T1 I agree with the majority's resolution of the blacklisting claims and that both internal and external whistle-blowers establishing public policy violations should be protected from retaliatory discharge. Nevertheless, I dissent from the portion of the opinion indicating that the plaintiffs/appellants, Gary Bova (Bova), Linda Foreman (Foreman), Carla Snipes (Snipes) and Greg Valley (Valley) (collectively, employees), failed to articulate any well-defined public policy violation in support of their wrongful…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. Sandra L. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994

36 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