5 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Actongreen1 sentence1995The courts which have refused to extend the doctrine to cases of negligence reason that to do so would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations in all cases involving a corporation’s claims against its own directors. 30 The necessity for a finding of active conduct was recently enunciated by the Fifth Circuit in Resolution Trust Corp. v. Acton, 49 F.3d 1086,1090 (5th Cir.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence1976The premise for this rule was recognized in Robinson v. *386 State, Okl.Cr., 444 P.2d 845, 847 (1968), wherein this Court stated: “ . . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DAVISON v. STATE
neutral
2 sentences2023Because the factual basis of this claim was available in prior proceedings, further review, or relief on this aspect of Petitioner's omnibus claim is procedurally barred in a second post-conviction proceeding. ¶12 In the second section of Petitioner's omnibus ineffectiveness claim, he argues that trial counsel failed to adequately "investigate, prepare, and litigate" the sentencing stage of trial. 3 Current counsel identifies several areas of evidence that trial counsel allegedly failed to fully develop and effectively present in the penalty phase of trial; including evidence of organic brain 2023Because the factual basis of this claim was available in prior proceedings, further review, or relief on this aspect of Petitioner's omnibus claim is procedurally barred in a second post-conviction proceeding. ¶12 In the second section of Petitioner's omnibus ineffectiveness claim, he argues that trial counsel failed to adequately "investigate, prepare, and litigate" the sentencing stage of trial. 3 Current counsel identifies several areas of evidence that trial counsel allegedly failed to fully develop and effectively present in the penalty phase of trial; including evidence of organic brain | 3 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.