Twine v. Maehl, 218 P. 1056 (Okla. 1923). · Go Syfert
Search
Twine v. Maehl, 218 P. 1056 (Okla. 1923). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1985 · …general scientific acceptance. ⚠ not in text
70 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Perkins v. State (texapp, 1995-07-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Perkins v. State
Tex. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Romero, 493 S.W.2d at 210 (court discussed Henderson v. State, 94 Okla.Crim. 45 , 230 P.2d 495, 501-02 (1951), which noted five factors responsible for error in polygraph examinations: (1) emotional tension, (2) physiological abnormalities, (3) mental abnormalities, (4) unresponsiveness in a lying or guilty subject, and (5) unobserved muscular movement which produce ambiguities or misleading indications in the blood pressure tracing). 4 .
cited Cited "see" Plunkett v. State
Okla. Crim. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 (1951) (lie detector tests).” Smith v. State, 656 P.2d 277, 281 (Okl.Cr.1982).
cited Cited "see" Smith v. State
Okla. Crim. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 (1951) (lie detector tests).
cited Cited "see" Marshall v. State
Okla. Crim. App. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 (1951).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Cook (2×)
Okla. Crim. App. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 (1951).
cited Cited "see" Hames v. Anderson
Okla. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495, 500 (1951). .
cited Cited "see" Martin v. State
Okla. Crim. App. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 (1951); Leeks v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 326, 245 P.2d 764 (1952); and Fetter v. State, Okl.Cr., 506 P.2d 1400 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" Jones v. State (2×)
Okla. Crim. App. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 , 23 A.L.R.2d 1292 (1951); Leeks v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 326 , 245 P.2d 764 (1952); Hayes v. State, Okl.Cr., 292 P.2d 442 (1956); Looper v. State, Okl.Cr., 381 P.2d 1018 (1963); Mullins v. Page, Okl.Cr., 443 P.2d 773 (1968); Vetter v. State, Okl.Cr., 506 P.2d 1400 (1973); Cherry v. State, Okl.Cr., 518 P.2d 324 *1327 (1974), and Fulton v. State, Okl.Cr., 541 P.2d 871 (1975).
discussed Cited "see" Lusby v. State (2×)
Md. · 1958 · signal: see · confidence high
See Henderson v. State, 94 Okla.
cited Cited "see" Hayes v. State
Okla. Crim. App. · 1956 · signal: see · confidence high
See Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 , 23 A.L.R. 2d 1292 ; Id., 342 U.S. 898 , 72 S.Ct. 234 , 96 L.Ed. 673 ; and Toms v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 60 , 239 P.2d 812 .
discussed Cited "see" Application of Poston
Okla. Crim. App. · 1955 · signal: see · confidence high
See Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45 , 230 P.2d 495 , 23 A.L.R.2d 1292 , where the circumstances were not as intense as here and where the death penalty was assessed but this court by reason of various cricumstanc-es reduced the punishment to 150 years in the penitentiary.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Catanese
La. · 1979 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45, 54 , 230 P.2d 495, 504 , cert, denied, 342 U.S. 898 , 72 S.Ct. 234 , 96 L.Ed. 673 (1955). [16] The American Polygraph Association promulgates a "Code of Ethics" and "Standards and Principles of Practice" for examiners.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TWINE Et Al.
v.
MAEHL
11983.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Oct 2, 1923.
218 P. 1056
1923 Okla. LEXIS 447
Disney, Wheeler & Barker, for plaintiffs in error., B. E. Nussbaum and Earl Bohannon, for defendant in error.
Pinkham.
Published

Opinion by

PINKHAM, C.

This is an appeal from the action of the district court of Muskogee county, Okla., in rendering judgment in favor of the defendant in error. The cause was duly reached for hearing upon the docket of this court, submit-, ted and assigned for the preparation of an opinion. Upon an examination of the record it appears that neither party has filed a brief in the case, although the time for so doing has long since expired.

In these circumstances the appeal of the plaintiffs in error must be dismissed for want of prosecution.

By the Court: It is so ordered.