Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1923–1980 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Breidenthal v. Grooms
neutral
2 sentences1953The old or “ancient” rule was that such reservation was repugnant to the grant and was therefore a nullity, but the better and more modern rule is the one followed in Westcott v. Bozarth, 202 Okl. 149 , 211 P.2d 258 , and quoted from Breidenthal v. Grooms, 161 Okl. 74 , 17 P.2d 688 , as follows: “Where the intention of the parties is clearly expressed by an explanatory clause incorporated in the habendum clause, or in a separate clause, the latter may control over the granting clause of the deed.” See other authorities cited and discussed in First Nat. 1953The old or “ancient” rule was that such reservation was repugnant to the grant and was therefore a nullity, but the better and more modern rule is the one followed in Westcott v. Bozarth, 202 Okl. 149 , 211 P.2d 258 , and quoted from Breidenthal v. Grooms, 161 Okl. 74 , 17 P.2d 688 , as follows: “Where the intention of the parties is clearly expressed by an explanatory clause incorporated in the habendum clause, or in a separate clause, the latter may control over the granting clause of the deed.” See other authorities cited and discussed in First Nat. | 2 | 1949–1953 |
Lahman v. Bassel
neutral
1 sentence1980First National *1155 Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa v. Price, supra. In Lahman v. Bassel, Okl., 373 P.2d 245 , the deed, following the description, contained the following recitation: “Except One Half of all mineral rights which belongs equally One Half to S. E. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Meeks v. Harmon
green
2 sentences1953“Where the intention of the parties is clearly expressed by an explanatory clause incorporated in the habendum clause, or in a separate clause, the latter may control over the granting clause of the deed.” and in the more recent case of Meeks v. Harmon, 207 Okla. 459 , 250 P. 2d 203 , we said: “* * * that every case must be approached for a concrete solution upon its individual facts. 1953“Where the intention of the parties is clearly expressed by an explanatory clause incorporated in the habendum clause, or in a separate clause, the latter may control over the granting clause of the deed.” and in the more recent case of Meeks v. Harmon, 207 Okla. 459 , 250 P. 2d 203 , we said: “* * * that every case must be approached for a concrete solution upon its individual facts. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Price
neutral
2 sentences1953Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa v. Price, 204 Okl. 243 , 228 P.2d 623 , and the Annotations, 131 A.L.R. 1239 and 157 A.L.R. 485 . 1953Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa v. Price, 204 Okl. 243 , 228 P.2d 623 , and the Annotations, 131 A.L.R. 1239 and 157 A.L.R. 485 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Westcott v. Bozarth
neutral
2 sentences1953The old or “ancient” rule was that such reservation was repugnant to the grant and was therefore a nullity, but the better and more modern rule is the one followed in Westcott v. Bozarth, 202 Okl. 149 , 211 P.2d 258 , and quoted from Breidenthal v. Grooms, 161 Okl. 74 , 17 P.2d 688 , as follows: “Where the intention of the parties is clearly expressed by an explanatory clause incorporated in the habendum clause, or in a separate clause, the latter may control over the granting clause of the deed.” See other authorities cited and discussed in First Nat. 1953The old or “ancient” rule was that such reservation was repugnant to the grant and was therefore a nullity, but the better and more modern rule is the one followed in Westcott v. Bozarth, 202 Okl. 149 , 211 P.2d 258 , and quoted from Breidenthal v. Grooms, 161 Okl. 74 , 17 P.2d 688 , as follows: “Where the intention of the parties is clearly expressed by an explanatory clause incorporated in the habendum clause, or in a separate clause, the latter may control over the granting clause of the deed.” See other authorities cited and discussed in First Nat. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Hughes v. State
green
1 sentence1923Hughes v. State, 7 Okla. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.