landowner challenge (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

landowner challenge in Oklahoma

5 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2015 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma.

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
STATE EX REL. REGENTS v. McCLOSKEY BROS. green
okla · 2009
2 sentences

2010Board of Regents v. McCloskey Brothers, Inc., 2009 OK 90 , 227 P.3d 133 , to be helpful.

2010Board of Regents v. McCloskey Brothers, Inc., 2009 OK 90 , 227 P.3d 133 , to be helpful.

22010–2010
Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart green
okla · 2003
1 sentence

2015It further provides that, if the clerk fails to give notice within ten days, "the court, upon application by any interested party, may extend the time for filing an exception to the report or filing a demand for trial by jury for a reasonable period of time not less than twenty (20) days from the date the application is heard by the court." Id. [10 Notice of the filing of the Report is critical because that filing triggers the time periods in which a landowner may challenge the Report.

12015–2015
Onego Corporation v. United States of America, Robert L. House and Claude N. Jordan green
ca10 · 1961
1 sentence

2005(Footnotes omitted, emphasis added.) Onego, 295 F.2d at 463 . ¶22 These authorities clearly advise that the trial court’s denial of admission of the Neel sale into evidence was eminently correct, and we therefore find no error was committed. ¶23 The trial court’s denial of Landowner’s motion for new trial is AFFIRMED.

12005–2005
Moses v. Hoebel green
okla · 1982
1 sentence

1995Moses, supra note 8 at 602-603; Southwestern, supra note 10 at 1265; Centorp, supra note 8 at 181 (syl. 1); Sanford, supra note 10 at 480 (syl. 3).

11995–1995

Where else courts name it

TX 19 (1959–2022) PA 13 (1986–2026) IL 13 (1982–2023) VT 8 (1987–2026) KS 8 (1915–2015) WA 7 (1915–2025) CA 7 (1973–2020) MO 6 (1915–2018) WI 6 (1991–2024) OH 6 (1984–2026) OK 5 (1995–2015) NC 4 (1997–2021) VA 4 (2005–2018) LA 4 (1988–2021) OR 4 (1976–1983) MN 3 (1918–2008) IN 3 (1986–2015) FL 3 (1960–2007) DC 2 (1987–2007) ID 2 (1996–2003) TN 2 (1961–2005) NH 2 (2005–2012) SD 2 (2006–2018) ND 2 (2006–2010) GA 2 (1924–1996) MT 2 (1978–2022) WV 2 (1975–1985)

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