minority rule in Oklahoma

24 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1922–2006 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 (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Schwartz v. BayBank Merrimack Valley, N.A.green massappct · 1983 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7	1	1
Matter of Estate of Burgessgreen utahctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (1983); In re Estate of Schede, 426 Pa. 93 , 231 A.2d 135, 137 (1967); In re Estate of Burgess, 836 P.2d 1386, 1391 (Utah App.1992).	1	1
First Union National Bank v. Ingoldgreen ncctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7	1	1
Schede Estategreen pa · 1967 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (1983); In re Estate of Schede, 426 Pa. 93 , 231 A.2d 135, 137 (1967); In re Estate of Burgess, 836 P.2d 1386, 1391 (Utah App.1992). 2001Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (1983); In re Estate of Schede, 426 Pa. 93 , 231 A.2d 135, 137 (1967); In re Estate of Burgess, 836 P.2d 1386, 1391 (Utah App.1992).	1	1
Willsey v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.green kanctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999The Komis case provides an excellent review of the various types of evidence that are helpful in proving or disproving whether perceived fear has an impact on the value of property. ¶ 17 Under the minority rule, “[t]he parties’ evidence and arguments are limited to the existence of fear, its prevalence, and its effect on market value, if any.” Willsey, 631 P.2d at 279 . 1999Under either the “intermediate reasonable fear” approach or the “minority perceived fear” rule “neither the owner nor anyone else may base an opinion of value on personal fear ... admissible [evidence] is an opinion of value of a qualified witness based on the existence of fear in the buying public in general which affects market value.” Id. at 280. “[T]he expert [does] not attribute a dollar figure to the element of fear [and] the jury makes no specific allowance for separate items of damage.” Id. ¶ 18 At the hearing on the EMF portion of the motion in limine, the landowners made an offer of	1	1
Puckett v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co.green tex · 1984 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 1 sentence 1992Co., 678 S.W.2d 936, 938 (1984), where the court said, “Whether this is the modern trend is debatable ...” 2 Most courts that have applied the minority rule have found that the terms of the policy that imposed a condition were ambiguous.	1	1
Dickow v. Cookinhamgreen calctapp · 1954 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960 2 sentences 1960The same annotator ( 40 A.L.R.2d 1084 ) in discussing the “minority view,” said: “A small minority of courts have held that a release by an injured party of the one responsible for the injury does not of itself, in the absence of language indicative of an intention on the part of the parties, preclude an action by the injured person against a physician or surgeon for negligent treatment of the injury, at least unless there has been full compensation in fact for the plaintiff’s total injuries.” The two most recent cases cited in the annotation and applying the minority rule are Ash v. Mortensen 1960The same annotator ( 40 A.L.R.2d 1084 ) in discussing the “minority view,” said: “A small minority of courts have held that a release by an injured party of the one responsible for the injury does not of itself, in the absence of language indicative of an intention on the part of the parties, preclude an action by the injured person against a physician or surgeon for negligent treatment of the injury, at least unless there has been full compensation in fact for the plaintiff’s total injuries.” The two most recent cases cited in the annotation and applying the minority rule are Ash v. Mortensen	1	1
People's Finance & Thrift Co. v. Shirkgreen okla · 1937 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1941–1941	1	1
Ex Parte Owensgreen oklacrimapp · 1926 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1940–1940	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (32)

Case	Cited	Years
In Re Whittington green calctapp · 1917 2 sentences 1958The case of In re Whittington, 34 Cal.App. 344 , 167 P. 404 , cited by petitioner, followed that rule, although in the later case of In re Thurber, 37 Cal.App. 571 , 174 P. 112 , the court, without citing the Whittington case, adopted the majority rule followed in Oklahoma and in a majority of the other states. 1958The case of In re Whittington, 34 Cal.App. 344 , 167 P. 404 , cited by petitioner, followed that rule, although in the later case of In re Thurber, 37 Cal.App. 571 , 174 P. 112 , the court, without citing the Whittington case, adopted the majority rule followed in Oklahoma and in a majority of the other states.	3	1953–1958
In Re Thurber green calctapp · 1918 2 sentences 1958The case of In re Whittington, 34 Cal.App. 344 , 167 P. 404 , cited by petitioner, followed that rule, although in the later case of In re Thurber, 37 Cal.App. 571 , 174 P. 112 , the court, without citing the Whittington case, adopted the majority rule followed in Oklahoma and in a majority of the other states. 1958The case of In re Whittington, 34 Cal.App. 344 , 167 P. 404 , cited by petitioner, followed that rule, although in the later case of In re Thurber, 37 Cal.App. 571 , 174 P. 112 , the court, without citing the Whittington case, adopted the majority rule followed in Oklahoma and in a majority of the other states.	3	1953–1958
Collins v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1923 2 sentences 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 . 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 .	2	1948–1958
First of Denver Mortgage Investors v. Riggs green okla · 1984 2 sentences 2006Id. at 1280, citing First Denver Mortgage Investors v. Riggs, 1984 OK 36 , 692 P.2d 1358 as the seminal case on the issue of application of the dormancy statute to foreign judgments in Oklahoma. 2006Id. at 1280, citing First Denver Mortgage Investors v. Riggs, 1984 OK 36 , 692 P.2d 1358 as the seminal case on the issue of application of the dormancy statute to foreign judgments in Oklahoma.	1	2006–2006
Bailey v. Campbell green okla · 1992 1 sentence 2001The Court noted that the minority analysis also relied upon Bankruptcy Rule 6009 to reach its result, but concluded that the analysis is faulty and that under a proper reading of the rule parties and the bankruptcy trustee must obtain relief from the automatic stay from the bankruptcy judge, after notice and a hearing. ¶ 5 Prior to the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Lyngholm , the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the question of the effect of a state appeal by a debtor in bankruptcy in Bailey v. Campbell, 1991 OK 67 , 862 P.2d 461 .	1	2001–2001
Holzbach v. United Virginia Bank green va · 1975 2 sentences 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7	1	2001–2001
First National Bank of McMinn County v. Walker green tenn · 1980 1 sentence 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7	1	2001–2001
Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co. green ga · 1973 2 sentences 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7	1	2001–2001
Clinton County National Bank & Trust Co. v. First National Bank green ohio · 1980 2 sentences 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7	1	2001–2001
Matter of Estate of Smith green coloctapp · 1978 2 sentences 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7 2001Clinton County Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati, 62 Ohio St.2d 90 , 403 N.E.2d 968 (1980); First Nat'l Bank of McMinn County v. Walker, 607 S.W.2d 469 (Tenn.1980); Holzsbach v. United Virginia Bank, 216 Va. 482 , 219 S.E.2d 868 (1975); In re Estate of Smith, 41 Colo.App. 366 , 585 P.2d 319 (1978); Lewis v. Tennille Banking Co., 230 Ga. 529 , 198 S.E.2d 172 (1973); Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 169 , 456 N.E.2d 1141 (1983); and see cases collected 16 A.L.R.3rd 951, 959-60; see First Union Nat'l Bank v. Ingold, 136 N.C.App. 262 , 523 S.E.2d 7	1	2001–2001
State v. Blanford green iowa · 1981 2 sentences 1984In State v. Blanford, 306 N.W.2d 93 (Iowa 1981), the Iowa Supreme Court was faced with the same issue, but instead held that while “a suspect’s request for counsel must be honored; a lawyer’s request for a client need not be.” Id. at 96 . 1984In State v. Blanford, 306 N.W.2d 93 (Iowa 1981), the Iowa Supreme Court was faced with the same issue, but instead held that while “a suspect’s request for counsel must be honored; a lawyer’s request for a client need not be.” Id. at 96 .	1	1984–1984
Bingham v. National Bank neutral mont · 1937 2 sentences 1967And, it is interesting to note that in Bingham v. Nat'l Bank, 105 Mont. 159 , 72 P.2d 90 , 113 A.L.R. 315 , it is recognized that Montana applies a minority rule because of the special statutes. 1967And, it is interesting to note that in Bingham v. Nat'l Bank, 105 Mont. 159 , 72 P.2d 90 , 113 A.L.R. 315 , it is recognized that Montana applies a minority rule because of the special statutes.	1	1967–1967
Johnson v. Johnson green kyctapphigh · 1953 2 sentences 1967The case of Johnson v. Johnson, (Ky.) 255 S.W.2d 610 , also cited, likewise arose in a dower state. 1967The case of Johnson v. Johnson, (Ky.) 255 S.W.2d 610 , also cited, likewise arose in a dower state.	1	1967–1967
Ash v. Mortensen green cal · 1944 2 sentences 1960The same annotator ( 40 A.L.R.2d 1084 ) in discussing the “minority view,” said: “A small minority of courts have held that a release by an injured party of the one responsible for the injury does not of itself, in the absence of language indicative of an intention on the part of the parties, preclude an action by the injured person against a physician or surgeon for negligent treatment of the injury, at least unless there has been full compensation in fact for the plaintiff’s total injuries.” The two most recent cases cited in the annotation and applying the minority rule are Ash v. Mortensen 1960The same annotator ( 40 A.L.R.2d 1084 ) in discussing the “minority view,” said: “A small minority of courts have held that a release by an injured party of the one responsible for the injury does not of itself, in the absence of language indicative of an intention on the part of the parties, preclude an action by the injured person against a physician or surgeon for negligent treatment of the injury, at least unless there has been full compensation in fact for the plaintiff’s total injuries.” The two most recent cases cited in the annotation and applying the minority rule are Ash v. Mortensen	1	1960–1960
People v. Ryan green cal · 1907 2 sentences 1960It is my further view that we should apply the majority rule in all those cases tried subsequent to the publication of our opinion herein (See People v. Ryan, 152 Cal. 364 , 92 P. 853 , and 21 C.J.S. 1960It is my further view that we should apply the majority rule in all those cases tried subsequent to the publication of our opinion herein (See People v. Ryan, 152 Cal. 364 , 92 P. 853 , and 21 C.J.S.	1	1960–1960
Cates v. Miles neutral okla · 1917 1 sentence 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 .	1	1958–1958
Ex Parte Coley neutral oklacrimapp · 1939 2 sentences 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 . 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 .	1	1958–1958
Ex Parte Hawkins neutral oklacrimapp · 1940 2 sentences 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 . 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 .	1	1958–1958
Willard v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1939 1 sentence 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 .	1	1958–1958
In Re Booth neutral oklacrimapp · 1942 2 sentences 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 . 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 .	1	1958–1958
White v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1929 2 sentences 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 . 1958Collins v. State, 24 Okl.Cr. 117 , 217 P. 896 ; White v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 289 , 283 P. 581 ; Ex parte Coley, 67 Okl.Cr. 482 , 94 P.2d 968 ; Willard v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 192 , 94 P.2d 13 ; Ex parte Hawkins, 70 Okl.Cr. 426 , 106 P.2d 1112 ; In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 .	1	1958–1958
Publicker v. Shallcross green ca3 · 1939 2 sentences 1945In the recent case of Publicker v. Shallcross, 106 F. 2d 949 , 126 A.L.R. 386 , the minority rule was followed, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. 1945In the recent case of Publicker v. Shallcross, 106 F. 2d 949 , 126 A.L.R. 386 , the minority rule was followed, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.	1	1945–1945
Joy v. Kizziar neutral okla · 1934 2 sentences 1941The plaintiffs contend: (a) That the rule stated in the Cuneo Case is the minority rule and should not be followed; (b) that it is contrary to the rule followed in Joy v. Kizziar, 169 Okla. 642 , 38 P. 2d 493 ; (c) that the deed involved here should be construed so as to carry out the. intention of the parties; and (d) that the rule followed in the Cuneo Case does not apply for the reason that the deed in the present case does not refer to the right of way of the Choctaw Coal & Railway Company as a boundary or otherwise mention it, thus indicating a lack of intention to include it in the grant 1941The plaintiffs contend: (a) That the rule stated in the Cuneo Case is the minority rule and should not be followed; (b) that it is contrary to the rule followed in Joy v. Kizziar, 169 Okla. 642 , 38 P. 2d 493 ; (c) that the deed involved here should be construed so as to carry out the. intention of the parties; and (d) that the rule followed in the Cuneo Case does not apply for the reason that the deed in the present case does not refer to the right of way of the Choctaw Coal & Railway Company as a boundary or otherwise mention it, thus indicating a lack of intention to include it in the grant	1	1941–1941
Tucker v. State green oklacrimapp · 1917	1	1935–1935
Commercial Banking & Trust Co. v. Citizens Trust & Guaranty Co. green kyctapp · 1913	1	1933–1933
Guthrie National Bank v. Gill green okla · 1898	1	1931–1931
McInturff v. Insurance Co. of North America neutral ill · 1910	1	1926–1926
Gustafson v. Rustemeyer green conn · 1898	1	1924–1924
Mitchell v. United Railways Co. neutral · 1907	1	1922–1922
Smith v. Simon neutral mich · 1888	1	1922–1922
Galbraith v. Fleming neutral mich · 1886	1	1922–1922
White v. Whittal neutral mich · 1897	1	1922–1922

Where else courts name it

WA 44 (1920–2021) CA 41 (1922–2023) VT 33 (1940–2025) TN 30 (1917–2018) TX 28 (1922–2023) VA 25 (1918–2024) OR 25 (1921–2021) OK 24 (1922–2006) AZ 23 (1946–2023) MI 22 (1927–2023) AR 22 (1923–2006) CO 22 (1897–2021) MD 22 (1960–2013) IL 20 (1903–2017) AL 20 (1913–2012) NJ 20 (1950–2009) MO 20 (1928–2018) FL 19 (1943–2015) WV 19 (1910–2023) IA 19 (1926–2018) ID 19 (1932–2019) WI 17 (1928–2017) SD 17 (1918–2015) NY 17 (1934–2010) MT 16 (1917–2023) KS 16 (1904–2017) DE 16 (1950–2026) OH 15 (1923–2015) NM 15 (1916–2000) LA 15 (1933–2019) SC 14 (1932–2025) KY 13 (1923–2021) AK 13 (1979–2024) MS 13 (1930–2019) CT 11 (1924–2025) UT 10 (1924–2008) ME 9 (1956–2022) PA 9 (1942–2015) NC 9 (1945–2009) HI 8 (1961–2025) DC 8 (1970–2015) IN 8 (1947–2000) WY 7 (1954–2019) NE 7 (1961–2002) NH 7 (1930–2009) RI 7 (1970–2013) VI 6 (1986–2016) ND 5 (1954–2011) GA 5 (1933–2003) NV 5 (1921–2007) MA 4 (1959–2006) MN 3 (1985–2011) PR 3 (1947–1955) GU 2 (2023–2024)

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