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 1987–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Guardianship of K.L.F.green2 sentences2002See In the Matter of the Guardianship of K.L.F., 129 N.J. 32 , 608 A.2d 1327, 1332 (1992). 2002See In the Matter of the Guardianship of K.L.F., 129 N.J. 32 , 608 A.2d 1327, 1332 (1992). | 2 | 2 |
Cartwright v. Maynardgreen2 sentences1995The accused makes this threshold showing when he shows that his sanity is "a `close' question which may well be decided one way or the other ... one that is fairly debatable or in doubt." Cartwright v. Maynard, 802 F.2d 1203, 1211 (10th Cir.1986), rev'd on other grounds, 822 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc), aff'd. sub nom. 1995The accused makes this threshold showing when he shows that his sanity is “a ‘close’ question which may well be decided one way or the other ... one that is fairly debatable or in doubt.” Cartwright v. Maynard, 802 F.2d 1203, 1211 (10th Cir.1986), rev’d on other grounds, 822 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc), aff'd. sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1995The United States Supreme Court held in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74 , 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1091-92 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), “that when a defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the [Federal] Constitution requires that a State provide access to a psychiatrist’s assistance on this issue if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one.” The Supreme Court held that where a defendant is able to make a threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense, he shou 1995The United States Supreme Court held in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74 , 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1091-92 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), “that when a defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the [Federal] Constitution requires that a State provide access to a psychiatrist’s assistance on this issue if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one.” The Supreme Court held that where a defendant is able to make a threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense, he shou | 2 | 1987–1995 |
Cartwright v. Maynard
green
2 sentences1995The accused makes this threshold showing when he shows that his sanity is "a `close' question which may well be decided one way or the other ... one that is fairly debatable or in doubt." Cartwright v. Maynard, 802 F.2d 1203, 1211 (10th Cir.1986), rev'd on other grounds, 822 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc), aff'd. sub nom. 1995The accused makes this threshold showing when he shows that his sanity is “a ‘close’ question which may well be decided one way or the other ... one that is fairly debatable or in doubt.” Cartwright v. Maynard, 802 F.2d 1203, 1211 (10th Cir.1986), rev’d on other grounds, 822 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc), aff'd. sub nom. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Harry J. Hicks, Administrator of the Estate of Carol Greitens, Deceased v. United States
green
1 sentence1987Several courts have recognized the loss of a significant chance as a new cause of action viewing the injury as the loss of a statistical chance of cure or survival. 15 Others have relaxed the degree of certainty and have adopted the substantial factor test instead of the reasonable probability standard. 16 Some jurisdictions have seemingly adopted a “substantial possibility” standard of sufficiency of the evidence. 17 Hicks v. United States, 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir.1966), involving Virginia law, is the leading case often cited in a line of medical malpractice cases which has developed embodying | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.