Rudolph Hargrave
From Judgepedia
Rudolph Hargrave is currently a Justice on the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Contents
|
Biography
Rudolph Hargrave was born in 1923 in Shawnee, Oklahoma, and resided in Wewoka, Oklahoma.[1]
Justice Hargrave and his wife, Madeline, have three children, Cindy Keefer of Ada, John Robert Hargrave of Wewoka, and Jana Howard of Woodward.
Legal Education and Experience
Judge Hargrave received his law degree from the University of Oklahoma in 1949. From 1949-1964, Hargrave operated in private practice in Wewoka, and was County Judge for Seminole County, Oklahoma, 1964-1967. From 1967-1969, Judge Hargrave was Seminole County Superior Court Judge and was Seminole County District Judge from 1969-1978.
On October 10, 1978, Hargrave was appointed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court by the Governor of Oklahoma David L. Boren. He has been retained in 1989, 1986, and 1992 he was retained by the voters for full six-year terms. Hargrave was elected Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma on January 1, 1989.[2]
Awards and Associations
During his term as Chief Justice he was elected by the National Conference of Chief Justices as Vice-President of that conference, the only Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice ever to serve in that position. He is also a member of the Seminole County Bar Association, Oklahoma Bar Association, American Bar Association and the Oklahoma Judicial Conference.[3] He was also a member of Delta Theta Phi Legal Fraternity.[4]
Political Affiliation
Judge Hargrave is currently listed as "nonpartisan," as Oklahoma judges are selected through merit, rather than through a campaign.[5] He was appointed to the bench by Governor David Boren (Democrat).
In the News: Articles
Court rescinds rule on records (March 26, 2008)
The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday rescinded a controversial rule closing many online court records and redacting information from court files.[6] In a statement issued Tuesday, the court said it was aware of the privacy and identity theft concerns regarding personal data that may appear on the court's Web site, www.oscn.net. "We are cognizant that many businesses and individuals rely on the information court clerks have placed on our Web site," the statement said. "Personal privacy balanced with reliable public information is critical for every free society."
Concurring in Tuesday’s Supreme Court vote to withdraw an order restricting public access to court records were Chief Justice James R.Winchester and Justices Marian Opala,Yvonne Kauger, Steven W. Taylor and Tom Colbert. Dissenting were Justices James E. Edmondson, Rudolph Hargrave, Joseph M.Watt and John F. Reif. The vote was 5-3 on the original order earlier this month closing the court information.Taylor dissented, while Kauger and Edmondson dissented in part. Opala did not vote on the original order.
On the Issues
On Contract Enforcement
2007
Justice Hargrave concurred in the majority opinion of Justice James Winchester, which invalidated a clause in a contract between defendant, a cellular phone provider, and defendant, a customer who entered into a contract with defendant.
2004
Justice Hargrave 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
Justice Hargrave wrote the majority opinion for the court. 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.
Justice Hargrave wrote the majority opinion for the court. 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 Election Law
2006
Justice Hargrave concurred in the result only, where the opinion of Justice Joseph M. Watt invalidated 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.
Justice Hargrave, along with Justices Lavender 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
Justice Hargrave 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's Rights
2007
Justice Hargrave concurred in the opinion of Justice James E. Lavender 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
Justice Hargrave 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.
Property Rights
2006
Justice Hargrave, along with Justices Lavender 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
Justice Hargrave 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
References
See Also
Portions of this biography were taken from Wikipedia on December 12, 2007.
