119 Oklahoma opinions name it 4 courts 1992–2025 27 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 |
|---|---|---|
Curry v. Streatergreen2 sentences2024"Under an abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court examines the evidence in the record and reverses only if the trial court's decision is clearly against the evidence or is contrary to a governing principle of law." Ibid. 2024"To reverse under an abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court must find the trial court's conclusions and judgment were clearly erroneous, against reason and evidence." Ibid. | 4 | 13 |
Dougherty v. State (In re J.L.O.)green2 sentences2023The Oklahoma Supreme Court has "also held that the applicable chief test is 'whether the grant or denial of the motion operates in the furtherance of justice.'" In re J.L.O. , ¶ 20, 428 P.3d at 888 (citation omitted). 2023The Oklahoma Supreme Court has "also held that the applicable chief test is 'whether the grant or denial of the motion operates in the furtherance of justice.'" In re J.L.O. , ¶ 20, 428 P.3d at 888 (citation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
MARSHALL COUNTY v. HOMESALES, INC.green2 sentences2022See Marshall Cnty. v. Homesales, Inc ., 2014 OK 88 12 O.S. 2022See Marshall Cnty. v. Homesales, Inc ., 2014 OK 88, ¶ 6 , 339 P.3d 787 (interpreting 12 O.S. | 3 | 3 |
Alameda Water & Sanitation District v. Carol M. Brownergreen2 sentences2011Alameda Water & Sanitation District v. Browner, 9 F.3d 88, 89-90 (10th Cir.1993) citing Allen Calculators, Inc. v. National Cash Register Co., 322 U.S. 137, 142 , 64 S.Ct. 905, 908 , *1056 88 L.Ed. 1188 (1944). 2010Alameda Water & Sanitation District v. Browner, 9 F.3d 88, 89-90 (10th Cir.1993) citing Allen Calculators, Inc. v. National Cash Register Co., 322 U.S. 137, 142 , 64 S.Ct. 905, 908 , 88 L.Ed. 1188 (1944). | 3 | 3 |
Utah Ass'n of Counties v. Clintongreen2 sentences2011See also Utah Assn. of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 1249-1250 (10th Cir.2001) ("We generally review a district court's ruling on the timeliness of a motion to intervene under an abuse of discretion standard.... 2010See also Utah Assn. of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 1249-1250 (10th Cir.2001) ("We generally review a district court's ruling on the timeliness of a motion to intervene under an abuse of discretion standard.... | 3 | 3 |
Christian v. Graygreen2 sentences2024No. 30</i>, <span> 2003 OK 30 </span><span> 66 P.3d 442 </span></p> <p>¶13 We use the abuse of discretion standard to review the district court's orders regarding the Subpoena.<i> Parris v. McCallay</i>, <span> 1967 OK 40 </span><span> 424 P.2d 62 </span><i>Christian v. Gray</i>, <span> 2003 OK 10 </span><span> 65 P.3d 591 </span></p> <p><u><b>DISCUSSION</b></u></p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p><b>I. 2024No. 30</i>, <span> 2003 OK 30 </span><span> 66 P.3d 442 </span></p> <p>¶13 We use the abuse of discretion standard to review the district court's orders regarding the Subpoena.<i> Parris v. McCallay</i>, <span> 1967 OK 40 </span><span> 424 P.2d 62 </span><i>Christian v. Gray</i>, <span> 2003 OK 10 </span><span> 65 P.3d 591 </span></p> <p><u><b>DISCUSSION</b></u></p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p><b>I. | 2 | 11 |
Tibbetts v. Sight 'N Sound Appliance Centers, Inc.green2 sentences2020An abuse of discretion standard of review includes examination of both fact and law issues and an "abuse occurs when the ruling being reviewed is based on an erroneous legal conclusion or there is no rational basis in the evidence for the decision." Tibbetts v. Sight 'n Sound Appliance Ctrs., Inc. , 2003 OK 72, ¶ 3, 77 P.3d 1042. 2020An abuse of discretion standard of review includes examination of both fact and law issues and an "abuse occurs when the ruling being reviewed is based on an erroneous legal conclusion or there is no rational basis in the evidence for the decision." Tibbetts v. Sight 'n Sound Appliance Ctrs., Inc. , 2003 OK 72, ¶ 3, 77 P.3d 1042. | 2 | 3 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 109 , 12 P.3d 20, 48 ("we afford the trial court's findings on factual issues great deference and will review its findings applying a deferential abuse of discretion standard"). 2021See Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 109 , 12 P.3d 20, 48 ("we afford the trial court's findings on factual issues great deference and will review its findings applying a deferential abuse of discretion standard"). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Delsogreen2 sentences2015State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, ¶ 5 , 298 P.3d 1192, 1194 ("In appeals brought to this Court pursuant to 22 00.98.2011, § 1053, this Court reviews the trial court's decision to determine if the trial court abused its discretion."). 2015State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, ¶ 5 , 298 P.3d 1192, 1194 ("In appeals brought to this Court pursuant to 22 00.98.2011, § 1053, this Court reviews the trial court's decision to determine if the trial court abused its discretion."). | 2 | 2 |
| Isle v. Bradygreen | 2 | 2 |
MURLIN v. PEARMANgreen2 sentences2024"To reverse under an abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court must find the trial court's conclusions and judgment were clearly erroneous, against reason and evidence." Murlin v. Pearman , 2016 OK 47, ¶ 17, 371 P.3d 1094, 1097. 2024"To reverse under an abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court must find the trial court's conclusions and judgment were clearly erroneous, against reason and evidence." Murlin v. Pearman , 2016 OK 47, ¶ 17, 371 P.3d 1094, 1097. | 1 | 4 |
Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc.green2 sentences2023The abuse of discretion standard has been described as "discretion employed on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons, or a discretionary act which is manifestly unreasonable." Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc. , 1999 OK 33, ¶ 20 , 987 P.2d 1185, 1194 . 2023The abuse of discretion standard has been described as "discretion employed on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons, or a discretionary act which is manifestly unreasonable." Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc. , 1999 OK 33, ¶ 20 , 987 P.2d 1185, 1194 . | 1 | 3 |
Lerma v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2014In deciding whether the evidence presented is sufficient to "sustain the judgment the Court views all evidence in the light tending to support the judgment, 'together with every reasonable inference deducible therefrom, rejecting all evidence adduced by the adverse party which conflicts with it? " Id. (citations omitted). 130 "In reviewing a trial court's decision denying a motion for new trial, the appellate court employs an abuse of discretion standard of review." Lerma v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2006 OK 84, ¶ 6 , 148 P.3d 880, 888 . 2014In deciding whether the evidence presented is sufficient to "sustain the judgment the Court views all evidence in the light tending to support the judgment, 'together with every reasonable inference deducible therefrom, rejecting all evidence adduced by the adverse party which conflicts with it? " Id. (citations omitted). 130 "In reviewing a trial court's decision denying a motion for new trial, the appellate court employs an abuse of discretion standard of review." Lerma v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2006 OK 84, ¶ 6 , 148 P.3d 880, 888 . | 1 | 3 |
Shores v. First City Bank Corp.green2 sentences2014Shores v. First City Bank Corp. , 1984 OK 67 , ¶ 4, 689 P.2d 299, 301 . 2014Shores v. First City Bank Corp., 1984 OK 67 , ¶ 4, 689 P.2d 299, 301 . | 1 | 3 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Williams v. State, 2008 OK CR 19, ¶ 27 , 188 P.3d 208, 217 . ¶ 27 Appellant acknowledges that this Court has never found that individual, sequestered voir dire is required in all capital cases. 2012Williams v. State, 2008 OK CR 19, ¶ 27 , 188 P.3d 208, 217 . ¶ 27 Appellant acknowledges that this Court has never found that individual, sequestered voir dire is required in all capital cases. | 1 | 3 |
TAL Technologies, Inc. v. L.D. Rhodes Oil Co.green2 sentences2021Rhodes Oil Co. , 2000 OK 38, ¶ 14, 4 P.3d 1256. 2021Rhodes Oil Co. , 2000 OK 38, ¶ 14, 4 P.3d 1256. | 1 | 2 |
| Capshaw v. Gulf Insurance Co.green | 1 | 2 |
| Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Littlegreen | 1 | 2 |
| Burroughs v. Bob Martin Corporationgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Okmulgee Producing & Refining Co. v. Wolfgreen | 1 | 1 |
| SHAWAREB v. SSM HEALTH CARE OF OKLAHOMAgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rowe v. Rowegreen | 1 | 1 |
| HICKS v. CENTRAL OKLAHOMA UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT FACILITYgreen | 1 | 1 |
| H.A. Sand Springs, LLC v. Lakeside Care Center, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Parsons v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| ALLEN v. CASTILLEJOgreen | 1 | 1 |
| West v. Board of County Commissionersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nelson v. Enid Medical Associates, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| K & H Well Service, Inc. v. Tcina, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| NELSON v. ENID MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.green | 1 | 1 |
| Robinson v. Borg-Warner Protective Services Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA CORP. v. McPhersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| ROBINSON v. FAIRVIEW FELLOWSHIP HOME FOR SENIOR CITIZENS, INC.green | 1 | 1 |
| Savoy Oil Co. v. Emerygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Underwood v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Champion v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pan v. Banegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holm-Waddle v. William D. Hawley, M.D., Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Hawley, M.D., Inc. , 1998 OK 53 967 P.2d 1180 Spencer v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. 2021Hawley, M.D., Inc. , 1998 OK 53 967 P.2d 1180 Spencer v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. | 5 | 2000–2021 |
Littlejohn v. State
green
2 sentences2018Littlejohn v. State , 2004 OK CR 6 , ¶ 49, 85 P.3d 287 , 301. 2018Littlejohn v. State , 2004 OK CR 6 , ¶ 49, 85 P.3d 287 , 301. | 4 | 2008–2018 |
Jones, Givens, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C. v. Berger
green
2 sentences2003When applying the abuse of discretion standard the trial court’s “Order will be reversed if the trial court is deemed to have erred with respect to a pure, simple and unmixed question of law.” Jones, Givens, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C. v. Berger, 2002 OK 31, ¶ 5 , 46 P.3d 698, 701 . 2003When applying the abuse of discretion standard the trial court’s “Order will be reversed if the trial court is deemed to have erred with respect to a pure, simple and unmixed question of law.” Jones, Givens, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C. v. Berger, 2002 OK 31, ¶ 5 , 46 P.3d 698, 701 . | 4 | 2003–2009 |
Robinson v. Oklahoma Nephrology Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Robinson v. Oklahoma Nephrology Assoc., Inc., 2007 OK 2 , " 6, 154 P.3d 1250, 1258 . 2015Robinson v. Oklahoma Nephrology Assoc., Inc., 2007 OK 2 , " 6, 154 P.3d 1250, 1258 . | 3 | 2010–2015 |
TRW/Reda Pump v. Brewington
green
2 sentences2013TRW/Reda Pump v. Brewington , 1992 OK 31, ¶ 5 , 829 P.2d 15, 20 . ¶18 This Court reviews the trial court's issuance of a protective order under the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, 22 O.S.2011, §§ 60-60.18, under the abuse of discretion standard. 2013TRW/Reda Pump v. Brewington , 1992 OK 31, ¶ 5 , 829 P.2d 15, 20 . ¶18 This Court reviews the trial court's issuance of a protective order under the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, 22 O.S.2011, §§ 60-60.18, under the abuse of discretion standard. | 3 | 2003–2013 |
Allen Calculators, Inc. v. National Cash Register Co.
green
2 sentences2011Alameda Water & Sanitation District v. Browner, 9 F.3d 88, 89-90 (10th Cir.1993) citing Allen Calculators, Inc. v. National Cash Register Co., 322 U.S. 137, 142 , 64 S.Ct. 905, 908 , *1056 88 L.Ed. 1188 (1944). 2011Alameda Water & Sanitation District v. Browner, 9 F.3d 88, 89-90 (10th Cir.1993) citing Allen Calculators, Inc. v. National Cash Register Co., 322 U.S. 137, 142 , 64 S.Ct. 905, 908 , *1056 88 L.Ed. 1188 (1944). | 3 | 2010–2011 |
Parris v. McCallay
green
2 sentences2024No. 30</i>, <span> 2003 OK 30 </span><span> 66 P.3d 442 </span></p> <p>¶13 We use the abuse of discretion standard to review the district court's orders regarding the Subpoena.<i> Parris v. McCallay</i>, <span> 1967 OK 40 </span><span> 424 P.2d 62 </span><i>Christian v. Gray</i>, <span> 2003 OK 10 </span><span> 65 P.3d 591 </span></p> <p><u><b>DISCUSSION</b></u></p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p><b>I. 2024No. 30</i>, <span> 2003 OK 30 </span><span> 66 P.3d 442 </span></p> <p>¶13 We use the abuse of discretion standard to review the district court's orders regarding the Subpoena.<i> Parris v. McCallay</i>, <span> 1967 OK 40 </span><span> 424 P.2d 62 </span><i>Christian v. Gray</i>, <span> 2003 OK 10 </span><span> 65 P.3d 591 </span></p> <p><u><b>DISCUSSION</b></u></p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p><b>I. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Gladstone v. Bartlesville Independent School District No. 30
green
2 sentences2024No. 30 , 2003 OK 30, ¶ 5 , 66 P.3d 442, 446 . ¶13 We use the abuse of discretion standard to review the district court's orders regarding the Subpoena. 2024No. 30 , 2003 OK 30, ¶ 5 , 66 P.3d 442, 446 . ¶13 We use the abuse of discretion standard to review the district court's orders regarding the Subpoena. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Glossip v. State
green
2 sentences2018Glossip v. State , 2007 OK CR 12 , ¶ 80, 157 P.3d 143 , 157. 2018Glossip v. State , 2007 OK CR 12 , ¶ 80, 157 P.3d 143 , 157. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bransgrove
green
2 sentences2017Payne v. Dewitt, 1999 OK 93, ¶ 9 , 995 P.2d 1088 ; State, ex rel. 2011Payne v. Dewitt, 1999 OK 93, ¶ 9 , 995 P.2d 1088, 1093 . | 2 | 2011–2017 |
Payne v. Dewitt
green
2 sentences2017Payne v. Dewitt, 1999 OK 93, ¶ 9 , 995 P.2d 1088 ; State, ex rel. 2011Payne v. Dewitt, 1999 OK 93, ¶ 9 , 995 P.2d 1088, 1093 . | 2 | 2011–2017 |
Gorham v. Gorham
green
2 sentences2015This principle was previously stated in Miles v. Young, 1991 OK CIV APP 101, ¶ 29 , 818 P.2d 1258 (citing Gorham v. Gorham, 1984 OK 90 , 692 P.2d 1375 ) "In an action of equitable cognizance, such as this, we will weigh the evidence, but will not disturb the trial court's judgment in the absence of abuse of discretion." Hence we conclude that the "clear weight of the evidence" inquiry is part of the abuse of discretion standard, and the generally accepted definition of an abuse of discretion applies in custody cases. 2015This principle was previously stated in Miles v. Young, 1991 OK CIV APP 101, ¶ 29 , 818 P.2d 1258 (citing Gorham v. Gorham, 1984 OK 90 , 692 P.2d 1375 ) "In an action of equitable cognizance, such as this, we will weigh the evidence, but will not disturb the trial court's judgment in the absence of abuse of discretion." Hence we conclude that the "clear weight of the evidence" inquiry is part of the abuse of discretion standard, and the generally accepted definition of an abuse of discretion applies in custody cases. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Miles v. Young
green
2 sentences2015This principle was previously stated in Miles v. Young, 1991 OK CIV APP 101, ¶ 29 , 818 P.2d 1258 (citing Gorham v. Gorham, 1984 OK 90 , 692 P.2d 1375 ) "In an action of equitable cognizance, such as this, we will weigh the evidence, but will not disturb the trial court's judgment in the absence of abuse of discretion." Hence we conclude that the "clear weight of the evidence" inquiry is part of the abuse of discretion standard, and the generally accepted definition of an abuse of discretion applies in custody cases. 2015This principle was previously stated in Miles v. Young, 1991 OK CIV APP 101, ¶ 29 , 818 P.2d 1258 (citing Gorham v. Gorham, 1984 OK 90 , 692 P.2d 1375 ) "In an action of equitable cognizance, such as this, we will weigh the evidence, but will not disturb the trial court's judgment in the absence of abuse of discretion." Hence we conclude that the "clear weight of the evidence" inquiry is part of the abuse of discretion standard, and the generally accepted definition of an abuse of discretion applies in custody cases. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Stroud v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
green
2 sentences2014In deciding whether the evidence presented is sufficient to "sustain the judgment the Court views all evidence in the light tending to support the judgment, 'together with every reasonable inference deducible therefrom, rejecting all evidence adduced by the adverse party which conflicts with it? " Id. (citations omitted). 130 "In reviewing a trial court's decision denying a motion for new trial, the appellate court employs an abuse of discretion standard of review." Lerma v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2006 OK 84, ¶ 6 , 148 P.3d 880, 888 . 2014In deciding whether the evidence presented is sufficient to "sustain the judgment the Court views all evidence in the light tending to support the judgment, 'together with every reasonable inference deducible therefrom, rejecting all evidence adduced by the adverse party which conflicts with it.'" Id. (citations omitted). ¶30 "In reviewing a trial court's decision denying a motion for new trial, the appellate court employs an abuse of discretion standard of review." Lerma v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 2006 OK 84, ¶ 6 , 148 P.3d 880, 883 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Head v. McCracken
green
2 sentences2014STANDARD OF REVIEW T8 An appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard 3 Head v. McCracken, 2004 OK 84, ¶ 2 , 102 P.3d 670, 674 . 2014STANDARD OF REVIEW T8 An appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard 3 Head v. McCracken, 2004 OK 84, ¶ 2 , 102 P.3d 670, 674 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| State Ex Rel. Tal v. City of Oklahoma City green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| Cities Service Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp. green | 2 | 2003–2011 |
| State v. Vaughn green | 2 | 2002–2003 |
| American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Washington v. Tulsa County neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Prough v. Edinger, Inc. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| STATE v. GILCHRIST green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| SMITH v. CITY OF STILLWATER green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| STATE v. BREZNAI neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Dowell v. Pletcher green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Bd. of Regents, Etc. v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Leding v. Furr neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| AUTRY v. ACOSTA, INC. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Davis v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Trent green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Hall v. Globe Life & Accident Insurance Co. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State Ex Rel. Department of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services v. Freedom Ranch, Inc. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Brumbaugh green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| White v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Autry v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Wainwright v. Witt green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Grant Drilling Co. v. Rebold neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Wood v. Wood neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.