17 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1947–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tibbetts v. Sight 'N Sound Appliance Centers, Inc.green2 sentences2020"To properly apply the law of the case doctrine the appellate court in the second appeal must decide exactly what the first appellate decision determined expressly or impliedly." Tibbetts v. Sight 'n Sound Appliance Ctrs., Inc ., 2003 OK 72, ¶ 10, 77 P.3d 1042 (citing Shoemaker v. Estate of Freeman , 1998 OK 17, ¶ 15, 967 P.2d 871). 2020"To properly apply the law of the case doctrine the appellate court in the second appeal must decide exactly what the first appellate decision determined expressly or impliedly." Tibbetts v. Sight 'n Sound Appliance Ctrs., Inc ., 2003 OK 72, ¶ 10, 77 P.3d 1042 (citing Shoemaker v. Estate of Freeman , 1998 OK 17, ¶ 15, 967 P.2d 871). | 2 | 3 |
Shoemaker v. Estate of Freemangreen2 sentences2020"To properly apply the law of the case doctrine the appellate court in the second appeal must decide exactly what the first appellate decision determined expressly or impliedly." Tibbetts v. Sight 'n Sound Appliance Ctrs., Inc ., 2003 OK 72, ¶ 10, 77 P.3d 1042 (citing Shoemaker v. Estate of Freeman , 1998 OK 17, ¶ 15, 967 P.2d 871). 2020"To properly apply the law of the case doctrine the appellate court in the second appeal must decide exactly what the first appellate decision determined expressly or impliedly." Tibbetts v. Sight 'n Sound Appliance Ctrs., Inc ., 2003 OK 72, ¶ 10, 77 P.3d 1042 (citing Shoemaker v. Estate of Freeman , 1998 OK 17, ¶ 15, 967 P.2d 871). | 1 | 3 |
Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Talgreen2 sentences2015COCA did not address the merits of the trial court's decision. "'The doctrine of the settled law of the case which we have recognized since 1915, provides that issues which are litigated and settled on appeal, or which could have been settled in that appeal, may not be the subject of further litigation between the parties in that case and are deemed settled.'" Acott v. Newton & O'Conner , 2011 OK 56, ¶ 10, 260 P.3d 1271 (quoting Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal , 2006 OK 27, n. 11, 174 P.3d 559). 2015COCA did not address the merits of the trial court's decision. "'The doctrine of the settled law of the case which we have recognized since 1915, provides that issues which are litigated and settled on appeal, or which could have been settled in that appeal, may not be the subject of further litigation between the parties in that case and are deemed settled.'" Acott v. Newton & O'Conner , 2011 OK 56, ¶ 10, 260 P.3d 1271 (quoting Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal , 2006 OK 27, n. 11, 174 P.3d 559). | 1 | 3 |
Acott v. Newton & O'Connorgreen2 sentences2015COCA did not address the merits of the trial court's decision. "'The doctrine of the settled law of the case which we have recognized since 1915, provides that issues which are litigated and settled on appeal, or which could have been settled in that appeal, may not be the subject of further litigation between the parties in that case and are deemed settled.'" Acott v. Newton & O'Conner , 2011 OK 56, ¶ 10, 260 P.3d 1271 (quoting Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal , 2006 OK 27, n. 11, 174 P.3d 559). 2015COCA did not address the merits of the trial court's decision. "'The doctrine of the settled law of the case which we have recognized since 1915, provides that issues which are litigated and settled on appeal, or which could have been settled in that appeal, may not be the subject of further litigation between the parties in that case and are deemed settled.'" Acott v. Newton & O'Conner , 2011 OK 56, ¶ 10, 260 P.3d 1271 (quoting Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal , 2006 OK 27, n. 11, 174 P.3d 559). | 1 | 1 |
Francis v. Rogersgreen1 sentence2011We have re-examined the relevant cases and remain convinced the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence does not apply here. 121 A careful reading of the cases set out above reveals the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence applies only where there is uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary line, or where no surveyed or recognized boundary line existed when the fence was erected. 4 See Lewis, supra, at ¶ 7 , 103 P.2d at 514 ; 5 Rocher, supra, at ¶ 15 , 80 P.2d at 651 ; 6 Piquet, supra, at ¶¶ 0, 2 , 165 P.2d at 622, 623 ; 7 Lamm, supra, at ¶ 8 , 109 P.2d at 226 ; 8 Kinkade, supro, at ¶ 2, 197 | 1 | 1 |
Buckner v. Russellgreen2 sentences2011We have re-examined the relevant cases and remain convinced the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence does not apply here. 121 A careful reading of the cases set out above reveals the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence applies only where there is uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary line, or where no surveyed or recognized boundary line existed when the fence was erected. 4 See Lewis, supra, at ¶ 7 , 103 P.2d at 514 ; 5 Rocher, supra, at ¶ 15 , 80 P.2d at 651 ; 6 Piquet, supra, at ¶¶ 0, 2 , 165 P.2d at 622, 623 ; 7 Lamm, supra, at ¶ 8 , 109 P.2d at 226 ; 8 Kinkade, supro, at ¶ 2, 197 2011We have re-examined the relevant cases and remain convinced the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence does not apply here. 121 A careful reading of the cases set out above reveals the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence applies only where there is uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary line, or where no surveyed or recognized boundary line existed when the fence was erected. 4 See Lewis, supra, at ¶ 7 , 103 P.2d at 514 ; 5 Rocher, supra, at ¶ 15 , 80 P.2d at 651 ; 6 Piquet, supra, at ¶¶ 0, 2 , 165 P.2d at 622, 623 ; 7 Lamm, supra, at ¶ 8 , 109 P.2d at 226 ; 8 Kinkade, supro, at ¶ 2, 197 | 1 | 1 |
Piquet v. Piquetgreen1 sentence2011We have re-examined the relevant cases and remain convinced the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence does not apply here. 121 A careful reading of the cases set out above reveals the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence applies only where there is uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary line, or where no surveyed or recognized boundary line existed when the fence was erected. 4 See Lewis, supra, at ¶ 7 , 103 P.2d at 514 ; 5 Rocher, supra, at ¶ 15 , 80 P.2d at 651 ; 6 Piquet, supra, at ¶¶ 0, 2 , 165 P.2d at 622, 623 ; 7 Lamm, supra, at ¶ 8 , 109 P.2d at 226 ; 8 Kinkade, supro, at ¶ 2, 197 | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Meyergreen2 sentences2011We have re-examined the relevant cases and remain convinced the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence does not apply here. 121 A careful reading of the cases set out above reveals the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence applies only where there is uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary line, or where no surveyed or recognized boundary line existed when the fence was erected. 4 See Lewis, supra, at ¶ 7 , 103 P.2d at 514 ; 5 Rocher, supra, at ¶ 15 , 80 P.2d at 651 ; 6 Piquet, supra, at ¶¶ 0, 2 , 165 P.2d at 622, 623 ; 7 Lamm, supra, at ¶ 8 , 109 P.2d at 226 ; 8 Kinkade, supro, at ¶ 2, 197 2011We have re-examined the relevant cases and remain convinced the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence does not apply here. 121 A careful reading of the cases set out above reveals the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence applies only where there is uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary line, or where no surveyed or recognized boundary line existed when the fence was erected. 4 See Lewis, supra, at ¶ 7 , 103 P.2d at 514 ; 5 Rocher, supra, at ¶ 15 , 80 P.2d at 651 ; 6 Piquet, supra, at ¶¶ 0, 2 , 165 P.2d at 622, 623 ; 7 Lamm, supra, at ¶ 8 , 109 P.2d at 226 ; 8 Kinkade, supro, at ¶ 2, 197 | 1 | 1 |
DLB Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. Commissiongreen2 sentences2006See DLB Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 1991 OK 5 , 805 P.2d 657 , 659 n. 6 (issues not briefed are waived) and Anderson v. Dyco Petroleum Corp., 1989 OK 182 , 782 P.2d 1867 , 1379 (issues not supported by argument and authority are waived). 129 However, we realize that both of Plaintiffs' appellate briefs, in essence, attempt to persuade us the Worsham I decision was mistaken in its ruling on the wrongful death claim. 2006See DLB Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 1991 OK 5 , 805 P.2d 657 , 659 n. 6 (issues not briefed are waived) and Anderson v. Dyco Petroleum Corp., 1989 OK 182 , 782 P.2d 1867 , 1379 (issues not supported by argument and authority are waived). 129 However, we realize that both of Plaintiffs' appellate briefs, in essence, attempt to persuade us the Worsham I decision was mistaken in its ruling on the wrongful death claim. | 1 | 1 |
McDonald v. Humphriesgreen1 sentence1994McDonald v. Humphries, 810 P.2d 1262, 1266 (Okl.1990); Muncrief v. Memorial Hospital, 767 P.2d 400, 403 (Okl.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Muncrief v. Memorial Hospital of Southern Oklahomagreen1 sentence1994McDonald v. Humphries, 810 P.2d 1262, 1266 (Okl.1990); Muncrief v. Memorial Hospital, 767 P.2d 400, 403 (Okl.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Estate of Severns
green
2 sentences2006Matter of Severns' Estate, 1982 OK 64 , T 5, 650 P.2d 854 . 2006Matter of Severns' Estate, 1982 OK 64 , T 5, 650 P.2d 854 . | 4 | 1997–2006 |
Severson v. Roberts, County Treas.
green
2 sentences2003Cinco Enterprises, Inc. v. Benso, 1999 OK 80, ¶ 11 , 995 P.2d 1080, 1085 ; Severson v. Roberts, 1946 OK 94 , 168 P.2d 615, 617 . 2003Cinco Enterprises, Inc. v. Benso, 1999 OK 80, ¶ 11 , 995 P.2d 1080, 1085 ; Severson v. Roberts, 1946 OK 94 , 168 P.2d 615, 617 . | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Western Heights Independent School District No. I-41 of Oklahoma County v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma State Department of Education
neutral
2 sentences2022Of course, dicta ratio decidendi of a court's opinion; dicta is not binding as part of the law of the case, dicta , since the school district's use of the doctrine of the law of the case is not applicable for another reason. ¶72 The settled-law-of-the-case doctrine operates to bar relitigation of issues decided and involved by implication in a prior appellate opinion when occurring upon a record in the same case or controversy . ¶73 The OSDE is bound by the final judgments in Western Heights , 2007 OK CIV APP 21 156 P.3d 53 ¶74 A procedural due process right such as that raised by petitioners, 2022Of course, dicta ratio decidendi of a court's opinion; dicta is not binding as part of the law of the case, dicta , since the school district's use of the doctrine of the law of the case is not applicable for another reason. ¶72 The settled-law-of-the-case doctrine operates to bar relitigation of issues decided and involved by implication in a prior appellate opinion when occurring upon a record in the same case or controversy . ¶73 The OSDE is bound by the final judgments in Western Heights , 2007 OK CIV APP 21 156 P.3d 53 ¶74 A procedural due process right such as that raised by petitioners, | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Kinkade v. Simpson
green
1 sentence2011We have re-examined the relevant cases and remain convinced the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence does not apply here. 121 A careful reading of the cases set out above reveals the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence applies only where there is uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary line, or where no surveyed or recognized boundary line existed when the fence was erected. 4 See Lewis, supra, at ¶ 7 , 103 P.2d at 514 ; 5 Rocher, supra, at ¶ 15 , 80 P.2d at 651 ; 6 Piquet, supra, at ¶¶ 0, 2 , 165 P.2d at 622, 623 ; 7 Lamm, supra, at ¶ 8 , 109 P.2d at 226 ; 8 Kinkade, supro, at ¶ 2, 197 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lewis v. Smith
green
1 sentence2011We have re-examined the relevant cases and remain convinced the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence does not apply here. 121 A careful reading of the cases set out above reveals the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence applies only where there is uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary line, or where no surveyed or recognized boundary line existed when the fence was erected. 4 See Lewis, supra, at ¶ 7 , 103 P.2d at 514 ; 5 Rocher, supra, at ¶ 15 , 80 P.2d at 651 ; 6 Piquet, supra, at ¶¶ 0, 2 , 165 P.2d at 622, 623 ; 7 Lamm, supra, at ¶ 8 , 109 P.2d at 226 ; 8 Kinkade, supro, at ¶ 2, 197 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lamm v. Hardigree
neutral
1 sentence2011We have re-examined the relevant cases and remain convinced the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence does not apply here. 121 A careful reading of the cases set out above reveals the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence applies only where there is uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary line, or where no surveyed or recognized boundary line existed when the fence was erected. 4 See Lewis, supra, at ¶ 7 , 103 P.2d at 514 ; 5 Rocher, supra, at ¶ 15 , 80 P.2d at 651 ; 6 Piquet, supra, at ¶¶ 0, 2 , 165 P.2d at 622, 623 ; 7 Lamm, supra, at ¶ 8 , 109 P.2d at 226 ; 8 Kinkade, supro, at ¶ 2, 197 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Rocher v. Williams
neutral
1 sentence2011We have re-examined the relevant cases and remain convinced the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence does not apply here. 121 A careful reading of the cases set out above reveals the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence applies only where there is uncertainty or doubt as to the true boundary line, or where no surveyed or recognized boundary line existed when the fence was erected. 4 See Lewis, supra, at ¶ 7 , 103 P.2d at 514 ; 5 Rocher, supra, at ¶ 15 , 80 P.2d at 651 ; 6 Piquet, supra, at ¶¶ 0, 2 , 165 P.2d at 622, 623 ; 7 Lamm, supra, at ¶ 8 , 109 P.2d at 226 ; 8 Kinkade, supro, at ¶ 2, 197 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010(Citations omitted.) Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Services, Inc., 2008 OK 29 , 198 P.3d 877 . ¶ 13 The Bierman Court did recognize an exception to the law of the case doctrine where “the prior decision is palpably erroneous and this Court is convinced that failure to reverse it will result in a gross or manifest injustice.” (Emphasis added). 2010(Citations omitted.) Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Services, Inc., 2008 OK 29 , 198 P.3d 877 . ¶ 13 The Bierman Court did recognize an exception to the law of the case doctrine where “the prior decision is palpably erroneous and this Court is convinced that failure to reverse it will result in a gross or manifest injustice.” (Emphasis added). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Manley v. Brown
green
2 sentences2006THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR BY EXCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT AS TO THE ISSUE OF FACTUAL PROXIMATE CAUSE, WITHOUT WHICH PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO SHOW ANY DAMAGES FOR PRE-SUICIDE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SUFFERED BY EITHER DECEDENT OR RAE WERE PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY ANY WRONGFUL CONDUCT OF DEFENDANTS 1 31 In Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79 , 989 P.2d 448 , the elements necessary to be shown in a legal malpractice case are set forth as follows: The plaintiff in a legal negligence action must prove (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship, (2) breach of a lawyer's duty to the client, 2006THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR BY EXCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT AS TO THE ISSUE OF FACTUAL PROXIMATE CAUSE, WITHOUT WHICH PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO SHOW ANY DAMAGES FOR PRE-SUICIDE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SUFFERED BY EITHER DECEDENT OR RAE WERE PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY ANY WRONGFUL CONDUCT OF DEFENDANTS 1 31 In Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79 , 989 P.2d 448 , the elements necessary to be shown in a legal malpractice case are set forth as follows: The plaintiff in a legal negligence action must prove (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship, (2) breach of a lawyer's duty to the client, | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Worsham v. Nix
green
2 sentences2006One, in view of the prior opinion by the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA), Division II in Worsham v. Nix (Worsham I), 2004 OK CIV APP 2 , 83 P.3d 879 , cert. denied (Okla.Sup.Ct., Dec. 15, 2003) 1 , does the law of the case doctrine foreclose a claim against Defendants for the *1058 wrongful death of decedent, who committed suicide about four months after retaining Defendants for legal representation to assist in stopping alleged workplace harassment he was experiencing from co-workers at Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO)? 2006One, in view of the prior opinion by the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA), Division II in Worsham v. Nix (Worsham I), 2004 OK CIV APP 2 , 83 P.3d 879 , cert. denied (Okla.Sup.Ct., Dec. 15, 2003) 1 , does the law of the case doctrine foreclose a claim against Defendants for the *1058 wrongful death of decedent, who committed suicide about four months after retaining Defendants for legal representation to assist in stopping alleged workplace harassment he was experiencing from co-workers at Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO)? | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Holbert v. Echeverria
green
2 sentences2003Walls, supra, primarily based on the meaning of the term "aggrieved consumer" contained in § 761.1(A), the plain import of the words "damages" and "actual damages" also contained therein, and a historical analysis of amendment to § 761.1(A) after our decision in Holbert v. Echeverria, 1987 OK 99 , 744 P.2d 960 (that rejected the notion the then existent version of the OCPA allowed a private individual cause of action under the Act), held that actual monetary damages, i.e., actual injury, was an essential element of the private right of action under the OCPA. 2003Walls, supra, primarily based on the meaning of the term "aggrieved consumer" contained in § 761.1(A), the plain import of the words "damages" and "actual damages" also contained therein, and a historical analysis of amendment to § 761.1(A) after our decision in Holbert v. Echeverria, 1987 OK 99 , 744 P.2d 960 (that rejected the notion the then existent version of the OCPA allowed a private individual cause of action under the Act), held that actual monetary damages, i.e., actual injury, was an essential element of the private right of action under the OCPA. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
C & L Enterprises Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2003C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma, 2002 OK 99, ¶¶ 20-21 , 72 P.3d 1, 6 . 2003C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma, 2002 OK 99, ¶¶ 20-21 , 72 P.3d 1, 6 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cinco Enterprises, Inc. v. Benso
neutral
2 sentences2003Cinco Enterprises, Inc. v. Benso, 1999 OK 80, ¶ 11 , 995 P.2d 1080, 1085 ; Severson v. Roberts, 1946 OK 94 , 168 P.2d 615, 617 . 2003Cinco Enterprises, Inc. v. Benso, 1999 OK 80, ¶ 11 , 995 P.2d 1080, 1085 ; Severson v. Roberts, 1946 OK 94 , 168 P.2d 615, 617 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cavett v. Peterson
green
2 sentences2002As discussed above, our jurisprudence stands for the proposition that attorneys' fees are not allowable under 12 O.S. § 936 where, as here, no labor or materials have been furnished under a contract for labor or materials. [2] ¶ 21 We conclude that to use the law of the case doctrine to impose attorneys' fees on the Tribe here, where they are clearly not authorized by law, would perpetrate a "gross or manifest injustice." Cavett v. Peterson, 1984 OK 59 at ¶ 14 , 688 P.2d 52 . 2002As discussed above, our jurisprudence stands for the proposition that attorneys' fees are not allowable under 12 O.S. § 936 where, as here, no labor or materials have been furnished under a contract for labor or materials. [2] ¶ 21 We conclude that to use the law of the case doctrine to impose attorneys' fees on the Tribe here, where they are clearly not authorized by law, would perpetrate a "gross or manifest injustice." Cavett v. Peterson, 1984 OK 59 at ¶ 14 , 688 P.2d 52 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller
green
2 sentences1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . 1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Matter of Estate of Eversole
green
2 sentences1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . 1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller
neutral
2 sentences1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . 1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Willis v. Nowata Land and Cattle Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1994Wills v. Nowata Land and Cattle Co., Inc., 789 P.2d 1282, 1285 , f.n. 10 (Okla. 1989). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Mobbs v. City of Lehigh
green
1 sentence1988Mobbs v. City of Lehigh, 655 P.2d 547 (Okl.1982). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Grand-Hydro v. Grand River Dam Authority green | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.