discretionary standard (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

discretionary standard in Oklahoma

5 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1930–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
International Union of Police Associations, Local No. 24 v. City of Lawtongreen
oklacivapp · 2009 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016Supp. 2014, § 24A.7 requires a public body to assess a number of facts when deciding to release a personnel record that appear to be based on the situation at the time the request is made . 4 See Int'l Union of Police Associations v. City of Lawton, 2009 OK CIV APP 85, ¶ 7, 227 P.3d 164 (decision of district court whether release was required pursuant to the ORA is subject to the discretionary standard of review).

2016Supp. 2014, § 24A.7 requires a public body to assess a number of facts when deciding to release a personnel record that appear to be based on the situation at the time the request is made . 4 See Int'l Union of Police Associations v. City of Lawton, 2009 OK CIV APP 85, ¶ 7, 227 P.3d 164 (decision of district court whether release was required pursuant to the ORA is subject to the discretionary standard of review).

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Walker v. City of Moore green
okla · 1992
1 sentence

1992Section 155(5)’s discretionary exception has been considered in a number of cases where the challenged conduct was analyzed. [1] Nguyen, supra note 17 , holds that a decision to release a mental patient is not within a discretionary function in the § 155(5) sense. [2] Robinson, supra note 30 , holds that a governmental entity has discretion in determining whether to perform a public work or to make an improvement; but once the work is ordered, the duty to perform it is ministerial or operational and must be done with "reasonable care and in a non-negligent manner”. [3] Walker v. City of Moore,

11992–1992
Robinson v. City of Bartlesville Board of Education green
okla · 1985
1 sentence

1992Section 155(5)’s discretionary exception has been considered in a number of cases where the challenged conduct was analyzed. [1] Nguyen, supra note 17 , holds that a decision to release a mental patient is not within a discretionary function in the § 155(5) sense. [2] Robinson, supra note 30 , holds that a governmental entity has discretion in determining whether to perform a public work or to make an improvement; but once the work is ordered, the duty to perform it is ministerial or operational and must be done with "reasonable care and in a non-negligent manner”. [3] Walker v. City of Moore,

11992–1992
Nguyen v. State green
okla · 1990
2 sentences

1992In Nguyen, supra note 17 at 963, the court notes that because almost all acts of public employees involve some element of choice and judgment, a broad interpretation of the discretionary exception would completely eliminate the government’s liability under its general waiver of immunity. 31 .

1992Section 155(5)’s discretionary exception has been considered in a number of cases where the challenged conduct was analyzed. [1] Nguyen, supra note 17 , holds that a decision to release a mental patient is not within a discretionary function in the § 155(5) sense. [2] Robinson, supra note 30 , holds that a governmental entity has discretion in determining whether to perform a public work or to make an improvement; but once the work is ordered, the duty to perform it is ministerial or operational and must be done with "reasonable care and in a non-negligent manner”. [3] Walker v. City of Moore,

11992–1992
Neal v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1948
2 sentences

1974In Neal v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 283 , 192 P.2d 294 (1948), this Court held that a trial judge may for special causes exclude any spectator from the courtroom, yet he cannot make the order of exclusion extend further than the special issues warrant in the particular case.

1974In Neal v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 283 , 192 P.2d 294 (1948), this Court held that a trial judge may for special causes exclude any spectator from the courtroom, yet he cannot make the order of exclusion extend further than the special issues warrant in the particular case.

11974–1974
In Re the Guardianship of the Persons & Estates of Morehouse green
cal · 1917
2 sentences

1930Necessarily a notice to him was not required.” In Re Lundberg (Cal.) 77 Pac. 166 , it was said that in Asher v. Yorba, supra, that court held: “It is a matter of discretion upon the part of the court to give any notice whatever to the relatives residing in the county,” and this based upon the phrase, “as the court may deem proper.” But that court said, even in view of the discretionary clause, omitted in our Code: “The statute does in terms require, that notice shall be given to the person having the care of the minor, and such notice for such time as the court may determine to bel reasonable,

1930Necessarily a notice to him was not required.” In Re Lundberg (Cal.) 77 Pac. 166 , it was said that in Asher v. Yorba, supra, that court held: “It is a matter of discretion upon the part of the court to give any notice whatever to the relatives residing in the county,” and this based upon the phrase, “as the court may deem proper.” But that court said, even in view of the discretionary clause, omitted in our Code: “The statute does in terms require, that notice shall be given to the person having the care of the minor, and such notice for such time as the court may determine to bel reasonable,

11930–1930
In Re the Estate & Guardianship of Eikerenkotter green
cal · 1899
2 sentences

1930Necessarily a notice to him was not required.” In Re Lundberg (Cal.) 77 Pac. 166 , it was said that in Asher v. Yorba, supra, that court held: “It is a matter of discretion upon the part of the court to give any notice whatever to the relatives residing in the county,” and this based upon the phrase, “as the court may deem proper.” But that court said, even in view of the discretionary clause, omitted in our Code: “The statute does in terms require, that notice shall be given to the person having the care of the minor, and such notice for such time as the court may determine to bel reasonable,

1930Necessarily a notice to him was not required.” In Re Lundberg (Cal.) 77 Pac. 166 , it was said that in Asher v. Yorba, supra, that court held: “It is a matter of discretion upon the part of the court to give any notice whatever to the relatives residing in the county,” and this based upon the phrase, “as the court may deem proper.” But that court said, even in view of the discretionary clause, omitted in our Code: “The statute does in terms require, that notice shall be given to the person having the care of the minor, and such notice for such time as the court may determine to bel reasonable,

11930–1930
Ex Parte Gerino green
cal · 1904
1 sentence

1930Necessarily a notice to him was not required.” In Re Lundberg (Cal.) 77 Pac. 166 , it was said that in Asher v. Yorba, supra, that court held: “It is a matter of discretion upon the part of the court to give any notice whatever to the relatives residing in the county,” and this based upon the phrase, “as the court may deem proper.” But that court said, even in view of the discretionary clause, omitted in our Code: “The statute does in terms require, that notice shall be given to the person having the care of the minor, and such notice for such time as the court may determine to bel reasonable,

11930–1930

Where else courts name it

PA 241 (1924–2026) CA 106 (1904–2026) OH 80 (1977–2026) IL 67 (1974–2025) TN 67 (1982–2026) WI 50 (1970–2026) IA 49 (2005–2026) OR 48 (1980–2025) MN 46 (1966–2026) LA 43 (1971–2023) NY 42 (1939–2025) IN 38 (1872–2025) AZ 36 (1957–2026) NJ 32 (1966–2026) CO 27 (1983–2026) WA 25 (1965–2026) ME 20 (1981–2018) MI 20 (1972–2025) AL 19 (1978–2025) VA 18 (2004–2025) ID 18 (1978–2020) TX 15 (1978–2025) SC 15 (1997–2020) NV 14 (1972–2018) WV 14 (1998–2024) FL 14 (1970–2019) KS 14 (1995–2025) GA 14 (1999–2022) MS 13 (1990–2024) MA 13 (1962–2025) UT 12 (1989–2026) CT 12 (1980–2018) MO 12 (1962–2019) NM 10 (1988–2019) MD 10 (1997–2016) WY 9 (2004–2024) DC 8 (1985–2025) VT 8 (1990–2021) NC 7 (1993–2017) AK 6 (1970–2025) HI 6 (1984–2012) SD 6 (1979–2010) ND 6 (1988–2018) RI 6 (1987–2008) OK 5 (1930–2016) NH 5 (1874–2009) MT 4 (1994–2023) DE 3 (1976–2026) NE 2 (1989–2006)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check