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 1992–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
South Bend Community Schools Corp. v. Widawski Ex Rel. Pagegreen2 sentences2022South Bend Community Schools Corporation v. Widawski , 622 N.E. 2d 160, 162 (Indiana 1993) a minor was injured during a gym class and the Supreme Court of Indiana addressed whether the term "incapacitated," for the purpose of tolling a governmental tort claim, included the status of being a minor. 2022South Bend Community Schools Corporation v. Widawski , 622 N.E. 2d 160, 162 (Indiana 1993) a minor was injured during a gym class and the Supreme Court of Indiana addressed whether the term "incapacitated," for the purpose of tolling a governmental tort claim, included the status of being a minor. | 1 | 1 |
Feightner v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A.green2 sentences2020In Wilson v. State Election Bd. , 24 we explained the standard of review with the following: A determination of whether the preclusion doctrine applies is solely a question of law if "(1) the facts are undisputed, (2) the preclusion question can be answered solely by reviewing the judgment put forward as the bar, or (3) the preclusion determination can be made solely by inspection of the record of the proceeding(s) culminating in the judgment put forward as the bar." Feightner v. Bank of Okla. , 2003 OK 20 , ¶ 3, 65 P.3d 624, 627 (citations omitted). 2020In Wilson v. State Election Bd. , 24 we explained the standard of review with the following: A determination of whether the preclusion doctrine applies is solely a question of law if "(1) the facts are undisputed, (2) the preclusion question can be answered solely by reviewing the judgment put forward as the bar, or (3) the preclusion determination can be made solely by inspection of the record of the proceeding(s) culminating in the judgment put forward as the bar." Feightner v. Bank of Okla. , 2003 OK 20 , ¶ 3, 65 P.3d 624, 627 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Vanderpool v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See Vanderpool v. State, 672 P.2d 1153 (Okla.1983) (modified doctrine of governmental tort immunity). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2009Judicial power is invoked by the timely filing of the governmental tort claim, and the expiration of the time period in § 157(B) operates to bar judicial enforcement of the claim against the government to which the legislature waived sovereign immunity); State of Oklahoma v. Dixon, 1996 OK 15 , 912 P.2d 842 (pre-lawsuit notice of a claim that complies with the provisions of the GTCA is necessary to invoke the power of the trial court to enforce a governmental tort claims action). 2009Judicial power is invoked by the timely filing of the governmental tort claim, and the expiration of the time period in § 157(B) operates to bar judicial enforcement of the claim against the government to which the legislature waived sovereign immunity); State of Oklahoma v. Dixon, 1996 OK 15 , 912 P.2d 842 (pre-lawsuit notice of a claim that complies with the provisions of the GTCA is necessary to invoke the power of the trial court to enforce a governmental tort claims action). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Winters Ex Rel. Winters v. City of Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2000Winters, 1987 OK 63, ¶ 13 , 740 P.2d at 727 . 2000Winters, 1987 OK 63, ¶ 13 , 740 P.2d at 727 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.