Robert Lavender
From Judgepedia
Robert E. Lavender (b. July 19, 1926) was a Justice on the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and was appointed to the Court's District 1 seat by Governor Henry Bellmon in 1966, and was retained by the voters later that year and subsequently in 1972, 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996, and 2002. He served as the Court's Chief Justice from 1979 to 1981. Justice Lavender retired from the court effective August 1, 2007.[1]
Contents
|
In the News: Articles
On the Issues
On Contract Enforcement
2007
- In the case of Bilbrey v. Cingular Wireless, L.L.C. (2007) Justice Lavender concurred in the majority opinion of Justice James Winchester, which invalidated a clause in a contract between defendant, a cellular phone provider, and plaintiff, a customer who entered into a contract with defendant.
2004
- In the case of Edmondson v. Pearce (2004) Justice Lavender concurred in the majority opinion concluding that the state's newly enacted prohibition on cock-fighting did not, amongst other things, constitute and regulatory taking of private property without compensation, or an unlawful interference with the contractual rights of those involved in cockfighting.
On Education
2007
- In the case of Hagen v. Independent School District No. 1-004 (2007) Justice Lavender concurred in the majority opinion of Justice Rudolph Hargrave. That opinion affirmed the trial judge's finding that the school district did not adequately demonstrate that a teacher who slapped and otherwise physically attacked a special-needs child deserved to have his employment terminated.
- In the case of Weston v. Independent School District No. 35 of Cherokee County (2007) Justice Lavender concurred in the majority opinion of Justice Rudolph Hargrave. That opinion affirmed the trial judge's finding that the school district did not adequately demonstrate that a teacher deserved to have his employment terminated for instructional ineffectiveness and unsatisfactory teaching.
On Elections Law
2006
- In the case of In re Initiative Petition No. 379, State Question No. 726 (2006) Justice Lavender concurred in the opinion of Justice Joseph M. Watt invalidating citizens' efforts to place a Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR) on the Oklahoma ballot due to the use of out-of-state petition circulators by the initiative's supporters.
- In the case of In re Initiative Petition No. 382, State Question No. 729 (2006) Justice Lavender, along with Justices Hargrave and Opala dissented from the majority opinion of Justice Yvonne Kauger and five others, which invalidated a property-rights based voter initiative that would have protected private property from economic-development and regulatory takings.
2002
- In the case of In re Initiative Petition No. 365, State Question No. 687 (2002) Justice Lavender concurred in the majority opinion upholding the legal and numerical sufficiency of an initiative petition that sought to ban cock-fighting in the state of Oklahoma.
On Employer and Employee Rights
2007
- In the case of Shero v. Grand Savings Bank (2007) Justice Lavender wrote the court's opinion finding that an employer had the right to terminate the employment of an employee who insisted on pursuing a claim against a third party under Oklahoma's Open Records Act, as there was no "public policy exception" to such a firing.
On Government Accountability
On Negligence and Personal Responsibility
2007
- In the case of Lowery v. Echostar Satellite Corp. d/b/a Dish Network (2007) Justice Lavender concurred in the opinion of Justice Steven W. Taylor finding Dish Network was not responsible for the injuries of a customer who fell off the roof of her home while trying to repair her Dish Network satellite dish, even though Dish Network refused to make the repairs, and encouraged the customer to climb up onto the roof and make the repairs herself.
On Property Rights
2006
- In the case of In re Initiative Petition No. 382, State Question No. 729 (2006) Justice Lavender, along with Justices Hargrave and Opala dissented from the majority opinion of Justice Yvonne Kauger and five others, which invalidated a property-rights based voter initiative that would have protected private property from economic-development and regulatory takings.
2004
- In the case of Edmondson v. Pearce (2004) Justice Lavender concurred in the majority opinion concluding that the state's newly enacted prohibition on cock-fighting did not, amongst other things, constitute and regulatory taking of private property without compensation, or an unlawful interference with the contractual rights of those involved in cockfighting.
On Discrimination and Equal Protection
See Also
External Links
References
Portions of this biography were taken from Wikipedia on December 12, 2007.
