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.
19 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Spencer v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.green2 sentences2013Co. , 2007 OK 76, ¶ 13 , 171 P.3d 890, 895 (emphasis omitted). ¶10 "The test of reversible error in instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if the alleged errors had not occurred." Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. , 2002 OK 24, ¶ 16 , 45 P.3d 86, 92-93 . 2013Co. , 2007 OK 76, ¶ 13 , 171 P.3d 890, 895 (emphasis omitted). ¶10 "The test of reversible error in instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if the alleged errors had not occurred." Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. , 2002 OK 24, ¶ 16 , 45 P.3d 86, 92-93 . | 2 | 2 |
Reinhart & Donovan Co. v. Williamsongreen2 sentences1994In Reinhart & Donovan Co. v. Williamson, 191 Okl. 539 , 131 P.2d 765, 766-67 (1942) we stated the two things that could constitute reversible error in the giving of jury instructions: The test of reversible error in connection with an instruction given is whether or not the jury were misled so that they reached a different result than they would have reached but for the error, or whether there is a serious misdirection in the charge, excluding from the consideration of the jury an issue properly in the case. 1994In Reinhart & Donovan Co. v. Williamson, 191 Okl. 539 , 131 P.2d 765, 766-67 (1942) we stated the two things that could constitute reversible error in the giving of jury instructions: The test of reversible error in connection with an instruction given is whether or not the jury were misled so that they reached a different result than they would have reached but for the error, or whether there is a serious misdirection in the charge, excluding from the consideration of the jury an issue properly in the case. | 2 | 2 |
COVEL v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2013Co., 2002 OK 60, ¶29 , 52 P.3d 1014, 1029 ; see also Covel v. Rodriguez, 2012 OK 5, ¶26 , 272 P.3d 705, 716 ("The test of reversible error in giving jury instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered if the errors alleged had not occurred."). 128 Certainly without any reference to sudden emergency, the jury could have concluded that Kidd was not negligent because she acted as a reasonable person would have in the exercise of ordinary care when a vehicle cut her off exiting the highway. 2013Co., 2002 OK 60, ¶29 , 52 P.3d 1014, 1029 ; see also Covel v. Rodriguez, 2012 OK 5, ¶26 , 272 P.3d 705, 716 ("The test of reversible error in giving jury instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered if the errors alleged had not occurred."). 128 Certainly without any reference to sudden emergency, the jury could have concluded that Kidd was not negligent because she acted as a reasonable person would have in the exercise of ordinary care when a vehicle cut her off exiting the highway. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2013Co. , 2007 OK 76, ¶ 13 , 171 P.3d 890, 895 (emphasis omitted). ¶10 "The test of reversible error in instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if the alleged errors had not occurred." Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. , 2002 OK 24, ¶ 16 , 45 P.3d 86, 92-93 . 2013Co. , 2007 OK 76, ¶ 13 , 171 P.3d 890, 895 (emphasis omitted). ¶10 "The test of reversible error in instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if the alleged errors had not occurred." Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. , 2002 OK 24, ¶ 16 , 45 P.3d 86, 92-93 . | 11 | 2005–2024 |
Taliaferro v. Shahsavari
green
2 sentences2019"The test of reversible error in giving jury instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered had the errors not occurred." Taliaferro , 2006 OK 96 ¶ 25 , 154 P.3d at 1248 . 2019"The test of reversible error in giving jury instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered had the errors not occurred." Taliaferro , 2006 OK 96 ¶ 25 , 154 P.3d at 1248 . | 5 | 2011–2019 |
Myers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
green
2 sentences2013Co., 2002 OK 60, ¶29 , 52 P.3d 1014, 1029 ; see also Covel v. Rodriguez, 2012 OK 5, ¶26 , 272 P.3d 705, 716 ("The test of reversible error in giving jury instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered if the errors alleged had not occurred."). 128 Certainly without any reference to sudden emergency, the jury could have concluded that Kidd was not negligent because she acted as a reasonable person would have in the exercise of ordinary care when a vehicle cut her off exiting the highway. 2013Co., 2002 OK 60, ¶29 , 52 P.3d 1014, 1029 ; see also Covel v. Rodriguez, 2012 OK 5, ¶26 , 272 P.3d 705, 716 ("The test of reversible error in giving jury instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered if the errors alleged had not occurred."). 128 Certainly without any reference to sudden emergency, the jury could have concluded that Kidd was not negligent because she acted as a reasonable person would have in the exercise of ordinary care when a vehicle cut her off exiting the highway. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ahlschlager v. LAWTON SCHOOL DIST.
green
2 sentences2012Dist., 2010 OK 41 , ¶ 19, 242 P.3d 509 , 515. "'The construction of an unambiguous contract is a matter of law for the court.!" Id. (quoting Ferrell Constr. 2012Dist., 2010 OK 41 , ¶ 19, 242 P.3d 509 , 515. "'The construction of an unambiguous contract is a matter of law for the court.!" Id. (quoting Ferrell Constr. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Computer Publications, Inc. v. Welton
green
1 sentence2012"Similarly, considering all the evidence tending to support the verdict together with every reasonable inference deducible therefrom, and rejecting all evidence adduced by the adverse party which does not support the verdict, we must affirm a jury verdiet if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support it." Id. 110 "The test of reversible error in giving jury instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered had the errors not occurred." Taliaferro v. Shahsavari, 2006 OK 96, ¶ 25 , 154 P.3d 1240, 1248 . 111 " | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Cortez v. State
green
1 sentence1973The test of reversible error in an instruction to the jury was set forth in the case of Cortez v. State, Okl.Cr., 415 P.2d 196 (1966) where this Court stated: “Instruction, improper and erroneous, will not be held reversible error where it is evident on consideration of all instructions given, undisputed facts, and verdict of jury, that such instruction did not work to the prejudice of the defendant, or deprive him of any fundamental or substantial right.” In this regard we find it highly pertinent that the defendant in the instant case was in fact acquitted of the charge of possession of mari | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.