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.
31 Oklahoma opinions name it 4 courts 1954–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daniel v. Danielgreen2 sentences2023Under the Facts of this Case the District Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Until Mandate Issues from the Supreme Court ¶21 This Court has "recognized . . . the long standing rule that while an appeal is pending in the appellate courts, the district court is without jurisdiction to make any order materially affecting the rights of the parties to that appeal." Daniel v. Daniel , 2001 OK 117, ¶ 11, 42 P.3d 863, 867. 2023Under the Facts of this Case the District Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Until Mandate Issues from the Supreme Court ¶21 This Court has "recognized . . . the long standing rule that while an appeal is pending in the appellate courts, the district court is without jurisdiction to make any order materially affecting the rights of the parties to that appeal." Daniel v. Daniel , 2001 OK 117, ¶ 11, 42 P.3d 863, 867. | 2 | 3 |
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 89 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988) (recognizing "long settled principle of Oklahoma law that a defendant who disagrees with the trial court's ruling on a for-cause challenge must, in order to preserve the claim . . ., exercise a peremptory challenge to remove the juror") (citing cases). [27] See id. at 88 ("[W]e reject the notion that the loss of a peremptory challenge constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury."); id. at 89 ("[T]he `right' to peremptory challenges is `denied or impaired' only if the defendant does not r 2003See Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 89 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988) (recognizing "long settled principle of Oklahoma law that a defendant who disagrees with the trial court's ruling on a for-cause challenge must, in order to preserve the claim . . ., exercise a peremptory challenge to remove the juror") (citing cases). [27] See id. at 88 ("[W]e reject the notion that the loss of a peremptory challenge constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury."); id. at 89 ("[T]he `right' to peremptory challenges is `denied or impaired' only if the defendant does not r | 2 | 2 |
Adair v. McFarlingreen2 sentences2013"When the statute is silent, it must be presumed that it was the intention to limit its operations to the period of time when it took effect, and to fasten its provisions only upon such proceedings as might be commenced thereafter." Adair, 1911 OK 129, 19 , 115 P. at 789 (quotations and citation omitted). 2013"When the statute is silent, it must be presumed that it was the intention to limit its operations to the period of time when it took effect, and to fasten its provisions only upon such proceedings as might be commenced thereafter." Adair, 1911 OK 129, 19 , 115 P. at 789 (quotations and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at 2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at | 1 | 1 |
Andrew v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at 2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at | 1 | 1 |
Rojem v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Anderson, 2006 OK CR 6 at ¶ 11 , 130 P.3d at 278. 2007Anderson, 2006 OK CR 6 at ¶ 11 , 130 P.3d at 278. | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. 2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 1 |
Warner v. Stategreen2 sentences2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. 2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2003See Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 89 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988) (recognizing "long settled principle of Oklahoma law that a defendant who disagrees with the trial court's ruling on a for-cause challenge must, in order to preserve the claim . . ., exercise a peremptory challenge to remove the juror") (citing cases). [27] See id. at 88 ("[W]e reject the notion that the loss of a peremptory challenge constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury."); id. at 89 ("[T]he `right' to peremptory challenges is `denied or impaired' only if the defendant does not r 2003See Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 89 , 108 S.Ct. 2273 , 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988) (recognizing "long settled principle of Oklahoma law that a defendant who disagrees with the trial court's ruling on a for-cause challenge must, in order to preserve the claim . . ., exercise a peremptory challenge to remove the juror") (citing cases). [27] See id. at 88 ("[W]e reject the notion that the loss of a peremptory challenge constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury."); id. at 89 ("[T]he `right' to peremptory challenges is `denied or impaired' only if the defendant does not r | 1 | 1 |
| Young v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Weavel v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Young v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mayfield v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Piercegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Heritage v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Buck v. Del City Apartments, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Buck , 1967 OK 81, ¶21 . ¶8 In Brown , 1999 OK 7 , this Court clarified the principles set out in Buck . 2014Buck, 1967 OK 81 , T 21, 431 P.2d 360 . 18 In Brown, 1999 OK 7 , 976 P.2d 1048 , this Court clarified the principles set out in Buck. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Brown v. Alliance Real Estate Group
green
2 sentences2014Buck , 1967 OK 81, ¶21 . ¶8 In Brown , 1999 OK 7 , this Court clarified the principles set out in Buck . 2014Buck, 1967 OK 81 , T 21, 431 P.2d 360 . 18 In Brown, 1999 OK 7 , 976 P.2d 1048 , this Court clarified the principles set out in Buck. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Parkey v. Parkey
green
2 sentences2012Parkey v. Parkey, 1962 OK 110, ¶¶ 18-19 , 371 P.2d 711, 714 . 2012Parkey v. Parkey, 1962 OK 110, ¶¶ 18-19 , 371 P.2d 711, 714 . | 2 | 2010–2012 |
Tennessee v. Street
green
2 sentences2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at 2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kittredge v. Kittredge
neutral
2 sentences2010Kith-edge v. Kittredge, 1995 OK 30, ¶ 5 , 911 P.2d 903 . 8 .In recognizing that the parties have some latitude to agree upon special conditions for termination or modification of child support, we do not depart from this Court’s long standing rule that an agreement of the parties as to child support is not binding upon the court, nor can such agreement affect the power of the court to modify an award of child support. 2010Kith-edge v. Kittredge, 1995 OK 30, ¶ 5 , 911 P.2d 903 . 8 .In recognizing that the parties have some latitude to agree upon special conditions for termination or modification of child support, we do not depart from this Court’s long standing rule that an agreement of the parties as to child support is not binding upon the court, nor can such agreement affect the power of the court to modify an award of child support. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Anderson v. State
green
2 sentences2007Anderson, 2006 OK CR 6 at ¶ 11 , 130 P.3d at 278. 2007Anderson, 2006 OK CR 6 at ¶ 11 , 130 P.3d at 278. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Nitey's Estate
green
1 sentence2004T10 Appellant's contention, however, ignores the long standing rule of law in this jurisdiction "that a presumption of want of testamentary capacity does not arise from the fact that the maker of a will may have been under guardianship at the time of the making of the will." In re Nitey's Estate, 1935 OK 1218 , 175 Okla. 8389 , 58 P.2d 215 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Powell v. State
green
2 sentences2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.”) (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position”); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. 2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cannon v. State
green
2 sentences2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. 2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Stone v. Oregon
green
1 sentence2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ybarra Villagrana v. California
green
1 sentence2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Stevenson v. Nixon
green
1 sentence2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Xin-Chang Zhang v. Slattery
green
1 sentence2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Luker v. Miller
green
1 sentence2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Arteaga v. United States Court of Appeals
green
1 sentence2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. 2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Salazar v. State
green
2 sentences2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. 2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Patton v. State
green
2 sentences2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. 2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Anderson v. Newberry
green
2 sentences2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.”) (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position”); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. 2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Braun v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.”) (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position”); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. 2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Free v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
green
2 sentences2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.”) (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position”); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. 2003In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.") (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15 , 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position"); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 , 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins ); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , 906 P.2d 765, 772 , cert. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Matter of Chad S. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma County Excise Board green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Bank of Stilwell v. Morris green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Shawnee Gas & Electric Co. v. Motesenbocker green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Heatley v. Territory of Oklahoma green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Humphrey v. Denney green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Swift v. Tyson red | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| City of Tulsa v. Smittle green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Southwestern Public Service Co. v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Northern States Power Co. v. Hagen green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Lone Star Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Okmulgee Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Carter v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Stone v. State neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Landrum v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Independent School District 1 v. Board of County Commissioners green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Binyon v. United States neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| King v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Hyde v. Territory of Oklahoma green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.