Our Endangered Heritage Exhibition General Guidelines

OklahomaThe inspiration for the traveling exhibit came about after seeing the Illinois traveling exhibit. Oklahoma modified its panels to appeal to a public audience, as one of its goals is to engage the public in supporting collections care.Traveling Exhibit, Our Endangered HeritageInstitute of Museum and Library Service

Cultural Summit II Work Book

OklahomaFeasibility study sInstitute of Museum and Library Service

Newspaper Article – \u27Little Red School House Opens\u27 for Thousands of Service Men

An article published in the Daily Oklahoman on October 11, 1943 describing the soldier literacy training school at Fort Ontario in Oswego, New York.https://scholarworks.moreheadstate.edu/stu_1210th_fort_ontario/1000/thumbnail.jp

Oklahoma

Correspondence from 1903 to James P. Bree, the National Secretary of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, New Haven, Connecticut. The correspondence, concerning Oklahoma AOH business, includes letters from Charles McNally written in Midway, Oklahoma before Oklahoma was granted statehood.https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/irish_hiberus/1037/thumbnail.jp

Oklahoma

PenSa further argued that operating agreements imposed on Bays, as operator, a duty of good faith and fair dealing, which Bays violated. The court first recognized that, under Oklahoma law, the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing does not extend to the contractual relationship created by an operating agreement. However, the operating agreements at issue in this case expressly provided that the parties were obligated to act in good faith in their dealings with each other with respect to the activities under those agreements. Since the duty of good faith between the parties in this suit arose from the provisions of the contracts, the court concluded that PenSa\u27s cause of action was for breach of contract and not a tort claim. The court granted summary judgment against PenSa to the extent that it sought recovery in tort

Oklahoma

In Naylor Farms, Inc. v. Chaparral Energy, LLC, the plaintiff royalty owners (collectively, Naylor Farms) contended that Chaparral systematically underpaid royalties on production from approximately 2,500 Oklahoma oil and gas wells by improperly deducting from royalty payments certain costs that the plaintiffs contended should have been borne solely by Chaparral under Oklahoma law. The district court granted Naylor Farms’ motion seeking certification of a class of royalty owners under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the present proceedings, Chaparral has appealed the district court’s order granting class certification