compliance doctrine in Oklahoma

21 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1911–2024 5 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 (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Estate of Golasgreen pasuperct · 2000 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023See , e.g. , In re Estate of Golas , 751 A.2d 229, 232-33 (Pa. Super. 2023See , e.g. , In re Estate of Golas , 751 A.2d 229, 232-33 (Pa. Super.	4	4
Slawson v. Board of County Commissionersgreen okla · 2012 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015As recently noted by the Supreme Court: "The limitations of the Tort Claims Act are narrowly structured, and a grant of substantial compliance under the general procedural regime is not allowed." Slawson v. Board of County Comm'rs of Logan Cnty. , 2012 OK 87, ¶ 6, 288 P.3d 533, 534 (citing Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ. , 1999 OK 102, ¶ 7, 995 P.2d 1118, 1121). ¶12 Notice is the "cornerstone" of the GTCA. 2015As recently noted by the Supreme Court: "The limitations of the Tort Claims Act are narrowly structured, and a grant of substantial compliance under the general procedural regime is not allowed." Slawson v. Board of County Comm'rs of Logan Cnty. , 2012 OK 87, ¶ 6, 288 P.3d 533, 534 (citing Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ. , 1999 OK 102, ¶ 7, 995 P.2d 1118, 1121). ¶12 Notice is the "cornerstone" of the GTCA.	2	2
Henderson v. Maleygreen okla · 1991 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See the discussion and application of a substantial compliance standard in Henderson v. Maley, 1991 OK 8 , 806 P.2d 626 , as to both (1) the 510 issues in that controversy and (2) the standard applied in a prohibition proceeding, Looney v. County Election Board of Seminole County, 1930 OK 461 , 146 Okla. 207 , 293 P. 1056 . 2014*City of Tulsa v. Whittenhall , 1929 OK 122 , 282 P. 322 (notice of claim filed on thirty-first day was in substantial compliance with requirement for notice within thirty days because plaintiff was unable to provide notice within the thirty-day period). 43 See the discussion and application of a substantial compliance standard in Henderson v. Maley , 1991 OK 8 , 806 P.2d 626 , as to both (1) the issues in that controversy and (2) the standard applied in a prohibition proceeding, Looney v. County Election Board of Seminole County , 1930 OK 461 , 293 P. 1056 .	2	2
Carswell v. Oklahoma State Universitygreen okla · 2000 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015As recently noted by the Supreme Court: "The limitations of the Tort Claims Act are narrowly structured, and a grant of substantial compliance under the general procedural regime is not allowed." Slawson v. Board of County Comm'rs of Logan Cnty. , 2012 OK 87, ¶ 6, 288 P.3d 533, 534 (citing Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ. , 1999 OK 102, ¶ 7, 995 P.2d 1118, 1121). ¶12 Notice is the "cornerstone" of the GTCA. 2015As recently noted by the Supreme Court: "The limitations of the Tort Claims Act are narrowly structured, and a grant of substantial compliance under the general procedural regime is not allowed." Slawson v. Board of County Comm'rs of Logan Cnty. , 2012 OK 87, ¶ 6, 288 P.3d 533, 534 (citing Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ. , 1999 OK 102, ¶ 7, 995 P.2d 1118, 1121). ¶12 Notice is the "cornerstone" of the GTCA.	1	2
Looney v. County Election Boardgreen okla · 1930 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014City of Tulsa v. Whittenhall , 1929 OK 122 , 282 P. 322 (notice of claim filed on thirty-first day was in substantial compliance with requirement for notice within thirty days because plaintiff was unable to provide notice within the thirty-day period). 43 See the discussion and application of a substantial compliance standard in Henderson v. Maley , 1991 OK 8 , 806 P.2d 626 , as to both (1) the issues in that controversy and (2) the standard applied in a prohibition proceeding, Looney v. County Election Board of Seminole County , 1930 OK 461 , 293 P. 1056 . 2014City of Tulsa v. Whittenhall , 1929 OK 122 , 282 P. 322 (notice of claim filed on thirty-first day was in substantial compliance with requirement for notice within thirty days because plaintiff was unable to provide notice within the thirty-day period). 43 See the discussion and application of a substantial compliance standard in Henderson v. Maley , 1991 OK 8 , 806 P.2d 626 , as to both (1) the issues in that controversy and (2) the standard applied in a prohibition proceeding, Looney v. County Election Board of Seminole County , 1930 OK 461 , 293 P. 1056 .	1	2
Raymond B. Yates, MD, PC Profit Sharing Plan v. Hendongreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023	1	1
In Re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672green okla · 1996 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014	1	1
In re the Transfers of Students from Caney Valley Independent School District No. 1-18 to School District No. 1-4green okla · 1973 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002	1	1
cluster 418714green ca2 · 1983 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1
Philadelphia Gear Corporation v. Central Bankgreen ca5 · 1983 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1
Leaseamerica Corporation v. Norwest Bank Duluth, N.A.green ca8 · 1991 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	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 (44)

Case	Cited	Years
Musgrove v. Holt neutral ark · 1922 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Buffington v. Thomas green miss · 1904 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
In Re Probate of the Last Will of Beckett neutral ny · 1886 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Arendt v. Arendt green ark · 1906 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Whalen v. Harrison neutral mont · 1891	2	1923–1923
Barney v. Hayes neutral mont · 1892	2	1923–1923
Mason v. Mason green pa · 1890 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Adams v. Maris neutral texcommnapp · 1919 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Wise v. . Short green nc · 1921 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Alexander v. . Johnston green · 1916 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
In Re Will of Cole green nc · 1916 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Hill v. Davis green okla · 1917 2 sentences 1923The following cases from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma will show that this court has adopted the substantial compliance rule: Hill v. Davis, 64 Okla. 253 , 167 P. 465 ; Dunlap v. Dunlap, 87 Okla. 95 , 209 P. 651 ; Davis v. Davis, 86 Okla. 265 , 207 P. 1065 . 1923The following cases from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma will show that this court has adopted the substantial compliance rule: Hill v. Davis, 64 Okla. 253 , 167 P. 465 ; Dunlap v. Dunlap, 87 Okla. 95 , 209 P. 651 ; Davis v. Davis, 86 Okla. 265 , 207 P. 1065 .	2	1923–1923
In re Estate of Skerrett green cal · 1885 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
In re Estate of Soher green · 1889 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Mitchell v. Donohue green cal · 1893 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Lane v. Walker green cal · 1895 2 sentences 1923We have called attention to these cases to show that the Supreme Courts of Louisiana, California, and Montana have adopted the rule requiring a holographic will to be “letter and figure perfect.” However, a tendency on the part of the California courts to depart from the “letter and figure perfect” rule is noticeable in the Estate of Walker, 110 Cal. 387 , 42 Pac. 815 . where three of the seven judges each file a dissenting opinion, and in the McMahan Estate, 163 Pac. 669 , where Judge Henshaw said: “An absolute precision of execution is not expected in the case of an holographic Will.’’ The d 1923We have called attention to these cases to show that the Supreme Courts of Louisiana, California, and Montana have adopted the rule requiring a holographic will to be "letter and figure perfect." However, a tendency on the part of the California courts to depart from the "letter and figure perfect" rule is noticeable in the Estate of Walker, 110 Cal. 387 , 42 P. 815 , where three of the seven judges each file a dissenting opinion, and in the McMahan Estate, 163 P. 669 , where Judge Henshaw said: "An absolute precision of execution is not expected in the case of an holographic will." The defend	2	1923–1923
Pilcher v. Pilcher green va · 1915 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Gooch v. Gooch green va · 1922 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Estate of Olssen green calctapp · 1919 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Estate of Clisby green cal · 1904 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
In Re the Estate of McMahon green cal · 1917	2	1923–1923
In Re Estate of Hartley green cal · 1919	2	1923–1923
Estate of Fay green cal · 1904 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Blizzard v. Drinkhouse green cal · 1901 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Toebbe v. Williams neutral kyctapp · 1883 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
In Re Dunlap's Will green okla · 1922 2 sentences 1923The following cases from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma will show that this court has adopted the substantial compliance rule: Hill v. Davis, 64 Okla. 253 , 167 P. 465 ; Dunlap v. Dunlap, 87 Okla. 95 , 209 P. 651 ; Davis v. Davis, 86 Okla. 265 , 207 P. 1065 . 1923The following cases from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma will show that this court has adopted the substantial compliance rule: Hill v. Davis, 64 Okla. 253 , 167 P. 465 ; Dunlap v. Dunlap, 87 Okla. 95 , 209 P. 651 ; Davis v. Davis, 86 Okla. 265 , 207 P. 1065 .	2	1923–1923
Graham v. Edwards green kyctapp · 1915	2	1923–1923
Davis v. Davis green okla · 1922 2 sentences 1923The following eases from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma will show that this court has adopted the substantial compliance rule: Hill v. Davis, 64 Okla. 253 , 167 Pac. 465 ; Dunlap v. Dunlap. 87 Okla. 95 , 209 Pac. 651 ; Davis v. Davis, 86 Okla. 265 , 207 Pac. 1065 . 1923The following cases from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma will show that this court has adopted the substantial compliance rule: Hill v. Davis, 64 Okla. 253 , 167 P. 465 ; Dunlap v. Dunlap, 87 Okla. 95 , 209 P. 651 ; Davis v. Davis, 86 Okla. 265 , 207 P. 1065 .	2	1923–1923
Urie v. Board of Education of Pryor Creek neutral okla · 1922 2 sentences 1923The following eases from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma will show that this court has adopted the substantial compliance rule: Hill v. Davis, 64 Okla. 253 , 167 Pac. 465 ; Dunlap v. Dunlap. 87 Okla. 95 , 209 Pac. 651 ; Davis v. Davis, 86 Okla. 265 , 207 Pac. 1065 . 1923The following cases from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma will show that this court has adopted the substantial compliance rule: Hill v. Davis, 64 Okla. 253 , 167 P. 465 ; Dunlap v. Dunlap, 87 Okla. 95 , 209 P. 651 ; Davis v. Davis, 86 Okla. 265 , 207 P. 1065 .	2	1923–1923
Barnes v. Horne green texapp · 1921 2 sentences 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 340 ; In re Clisby’s Estate (Cal.) 78 Pac. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 Pac. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer’s Estate (Cal.) 66 Pac. 961 ; In re Olssen’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 22 ; In re Hartley’s Estate (Cal.) 184 Pac. 950 : In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 Pac. 669 ; In re Soher’s Estate (Cal.) 21 Pac. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 Pac. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 Pac. 282 , 27 Pac. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 Atl. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N 1923We will here give a list of the authorities cited by defendant in error: In re Fay's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 340 ; In re Clisby's Estate (Cal.) 78 P. 964 ; In re Estate of Skerrett (Cal.) 8 P. 181 ; In re Lakemeyer's Estate (Cal.) 66 P. 961 ; In re Olssen's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 22 ; In re Hartley's Estate (Cal.) 184 P. 950 ; In re McMahon's Estate (Cal.) 163 P. 669 ; In re Soher's Estate (Cal.) 21 P. 8 ; Mitchell v. Donohue (Cal.) 34 P. 614 ; Barney v. Hays (Mont.) 29 P. 282 , 27 P. 384 ; Appeal of Know (Pa.) 18 A. 1021 ; Fosselman v. Elder, 98 Pa. St. 159; Wise v. Short (N.C.) 107 S.E. 134 ; Alex	2	1923–1923
Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal green okla · 2007	1	2024–2024
GRAY v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES neutral okla · 2023	1	2023–2023
City of Tulsa v. Whittenhall green okla · 1929	1	2014–2014
State v. Durant green oklacrimapp · 1980	1	1989–1989
Goff v. Knight neutral okla · 1949	1	1970–1970
Moorehead v. State green oklacrimapp · 1927	1	1961–1961
In Re Jones' Estate green okla · 1942	1	1945–1945
In Re Belmore's Estate neutral okla · 1941	1	1945–1945
Minton v. Roberts neutral okla · 1926	1	1931–1931
Carlile v. National Oil & Development Co. green okla · 1921	1	1927–1927

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CFR § 26c.f.r.1.408-2 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 186 (1892–2026) OH 184 (1896–2026) TX 123 (1878–2026) WA 110 (1931–2026) IL 109 (1874–2026) NJ 87 (1924–2026) IA 79 (1885–2025) NY 73 (1845–2026) MS 71 (1870–2026) MI 60 (1887–2025) KY 52 (1921–2026) PA 52 (1859–2025) MO 49 (1890–2018) UT 49 (1988–2024) CO 36 (1890–2026) GA 36 (1898–2025) IN 31 (1870–2020) KS 31 (1890–2025) MD 29 (1909–2019) CT 27 (1926–2024) LA 26 (1916–2024) AL 26 (1909–1995) FL 26 (1893–2024) TN 26 (1967–2026) OK 21 (1911–2024) AR 19 (1906–2021) MN 19 (1892–2016) AZ 17 (1934–2026) WI 14 (1958–2026) NV 13 (1923–2023) VA 13 (1891–2025) DC 13 (1948–2024) MT 12 (1907–2025) NE 12 (1898–2020) NM 12 (1987–2019) SD 11 (1996–2024) OR 10 (1909–2026) NC 10 (1896–2020) HI 9 (1912–2006) ME 7 (1982–2016) MA 7 (1915–2023) WV 7 (1921–1999) VT 6 (1908–2018) WY 6 (1921–2005) ND 5 (1898–1995) AK 5 (1977–2021) SC 5 (1929–2007) DE 4 (1971–2015) ID 4 (1931–2023) NH 3 (1989–2020) PR 2 (1929–1930) VI 2 (2000–2024)

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