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.
17 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hogan v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38 , 139 P.3d 907, 923 . 2023Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38 , 139 P.3d 907, 923 . | 3 | 14 |
NICHOLSON v. STATEgreen2 sentences2021Nicholson v. State , 2018 OK CR 10, ¶ 9, 421 P.3d 890, 895. 2021Nicholson v. State , 2018 OK CR 10, ¶ 9, 421 P.3d 890, 895. | 2 | 2 |
Simpson v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40 , 1 2, 876 P.2d 690, 692-93 .: To obtain relief, Appellant must prove a plain or obvious error affected the outcome of the proceeding. 2016Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40 , 1 2, 876 P.2d 690, 692-93 .: To obtain relief, Appellant must prove a plain or obvious error affected the outcome of the proceeding. | 1 | 4 |
Murphy v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Murphy , 2012 OK CR 8, ¶ 18, 281 P.3d at 1290. 2016Murphy, 2012 OK CR 8, ¶ 18 , 281 P.3d at 1290 . | 1 | 2 |
BENCH v. STATEgreen2 sentences2021Bench , 2018 OK CR 31, ¶ 140, 431 P.3d at 967 (when a specific objection is made at trial, this Court will not consider a different one on appeal). ¶128 On plain error review, Nolen must show that the commission of a plain or obvious error affected the outcome of his trial. 2021Bench , 2018 OK CR 31, ¶ 140, 431 P.3d at 967 (when a specific objection is made at trial, this Court will not consider a different one on appeal). ¶128 On plain error review, Nolen must show that the commission of a plain or obvious error affected the outcome of his trial. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2016We must first determine whether Appellant can establish a plain or obvious violation of controlling law; here, the rules of relevance in the Oklahoma Evidence Code. ¶37 Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 12 O.S.2001, § 2401; Taylor v. State , 2011 OK CR 8, ¶ 40, 248 P.3d 362, 375-76. 2016We must first determine whether Appellant can establish a plain or obvious violation of controlling law; here, the rules of relevance in the Oklahoma Evidence Code. ¶37 Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 12 O.S.2001, § 2401; Taylor v. State , 2011 OK CR 8, ¶ 40, 248 P.3d 362, 375-76. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.