preponderance of the evidence standard in Oklahoma

17 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2024 1 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 (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re WINSHIPgreen scotus · 1970 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 2 sentences 1987See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1075 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). 1987See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1075 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970).	2	2
Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Healthgreen scotus · 1990 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Missouri Dept. of Health , 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990)). ¶18 Sister argues to the contrary that there is an overarching policy in Title 63 favoring the provision of life-sustaining treatment, which is indicative of the Legislature's intent to impose a more lenient standard of proof when analyzing the revocation of an advance directive. 17 Sister further argues that the text of § 3101.6, stating that an advance directive may be revoked "at any time and in any manner," suggests that the proper standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence standard. 63 O.S. § 3101.6(A).	1	1
Peters v. Oklahoma Department of Public Safetygreen okla · 1976 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Peters v. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, 1976 OK 183 , 557 P.2d 908, 909, 910 (""Evidence in support of the Department's claim Peters refused to submit to the test was found short of meeting the preponderance of the evidence test ... 2013Peters v. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, 1976 OK 183 , 557 P.2d 908, 909, 910 (""Evidence in support of the Department's claim Peters refused to submit to the test was found short of meeting the preponderance of the evidence test ...	1	1
Fleming v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Robinson v. State, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322 (Okl.Cr.1991); Fleming v. State, 760 P.2d 206, 207 (Old.Cr.1988); Lewis v. State, 739 P.2d 534, 535 (Okl.Cr.1987).	1	1
Robinson v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Robinson v. State, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322 (Okl.Cr.1991); Fleming v. State, 760 P.2d 206, 207 (Old.Cr.1988); Lewis v. State, 739 P.2d 534, 535 (Okl.Cr.1987).	1	1
Lewis v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Robinson v. State, 809 P.2d 1320, 1322 (Okl.Cr.1991); Fleming v. State, 760 P.2d 206, 207 (Old.Cr.1988); Lewis v. State, 739 P.2d 534, 535 (Okl.Cr.1987).	1	1
Burrows v. Burrowsgreen okla · 1994 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
Mitchell v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996See Mitchell, 884 P.2d at 1206 . 1996See Mitchell, 884 P.2d at 1206 .	1	1
Busby v. Quail Creek Golf & Country Clubgreen okla · 1994 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996Although there are times that we may look to other states for guidance, see Burrows v. Burrows, 886 P.2d 984, 988-89 (Okla.1994); Busby v. Quail Creek Golf & Country Club, 885 P.2d 1326, 1330-31 (Okla.1994), where federal constitutional issues are involved we generally look to the federal courts, and more specifically to the United States Supreme Court. 1996Although there are times that we may look to other states for guidance, see Burrows v. Burrows, 886 P.2d 984, 988-89 (Okla.1994); Busby v. Quail Creek Golf & Country Club, 885 P.2d 1326, 1330-31 (Okla.1994), where federal constitutional issues are involved we generally look to the federal courts, and more specifically to the United States Supreme Court.	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 (27)

Case	Cited	Years
E. A. v. State, Division of Family & Youth Services green alaska · 2002 2 sentences 2006E.A. v. State of Alaska, 46 P.3d 986 (Alaska 2002). 2006E.A. v. State of Alaska, 46 P.3d 986 (Alaska 2002).	2	2006–2006
Addington v. Texas green scotus · 1979 2 sentences 1981Okl., 615 P.2d 287 [1980]. . 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 [1979], In Addington the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard came to be rejected as unfairly requiring the individual to share the risk of error when possible injury to him was significantly greater than any possible harm to the state. 1981Okl., 615 P.2d 287 [1980]. . 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 [1979], In Addington the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard came to be rejected as unfairly requiring the individual to share the risk of error when possible injury to him was significantly greater than any possible harm to the state.	2	1981–1996
Price v. Reed green okla · 1986 1 sentence 2012Price v. Reed, 1986 OK 43 , ¶ 7, 725 P.2d at 1260 ; Smith v. State ex rel.	1	2012–2012
State, Ex Rel. Lane v. Bass green oklacrimapp · 2004 2 sentences 2006Id., 2004 OK CR 14, ¶ 15 , 87 P.3d at 633 . ¶ 4 Applying that standard and looking at the evidence de novo, we find the trial court's ruling should be affirmed. 2006Id., 2004 OK CR 14, ¶ 15 , 87 P.3d at 633 . ¶ 4 Applying that standard and looking at the evidence de novo, we find the trial court's ruling should be affirmed.	1	2006–2006
Matter of JB green okla · 1982 2 sentences 2005Committee Comments The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Matter of J.B., 1982 OK 40 , ¶ 7, 643 P.2d 306 , 309, that the preponderance of the evidence standard is applied to the adjudication of deprived status, because the risk of an error is less onerous on a parent than in a termination of parental status proceeding. 2005Committee Comments The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Matter of J.B., 1982 OK 40 , ¶ 7, 643 P.2d 306 , 309, that the preponderance of the evidence standard is applied to the adjudication of deprived status, because the risk of an error is less onerous on a parent than in a termination of parental status proceeding.	1	2005–2005
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 2005Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. den. 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981). 2005Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. den. 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981).	1	2005–2005
In re International Longshoremen's Ass'n green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 2005Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. den. 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981). 2005Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. den. 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981).	1	2005–2005
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission green scotus · 1981 1 sentence 2005Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. den. 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981).	1	2005–2005
Murphy v. State green oklacrimapp · 2002 2 sentences 2004Murphy, 2002 OK CR 32, ¶ 35 , 54 P.3d at 568 . ¶ 27 We must also address the State's contention that "it is incumbent upon a defendant to present sufficient evidence, at an evidentiary hearing before the trial court, that he is mentally retarded so as to raise a question of fact to be resolved by a jury." The post-conviction cases relied upon by the State for that contention, Lambert and Pickens , do not require a defendant to present prima facie evidence of mental retardation before being entitled to raise the matter at trial; Lambert and Pickens are instructive for post-conviction matters. 2004Murphy, 2002 OK CR 32, ¶ 35 , 54 P.3d at 568 . ¶ 27 We must also address the State's contention that "it is incumbent upon a defendant to present sufficient evidence, at an evidentiary hearing before the trial court, that he is mentally retarded so as to raise a question of fact to be resolved by a jury." The post-conviction cases relied upon by the State for that contention, Lambert and Pickens , do not require a defendant to present prima facie evidence of mental retardation before being entitled to raise the matter at trial; Lambert and Pickens are instructive for post-conviction matters.	1	2004–2004
In Re the Adoption of F.H. green alaska · 1993 2 sentences 2003Id. 851 P.2d at 1363-64 . ¶ 77 This Court holds that, in the specific context of Section 1915(b) placements, the party opposing the statutory preferences must establish good cause according to the "clear and convincing" evidence standard. 374 ¶ 78 This holding is consistent with the standard of proof applicable to subsequent stages where "clear and convincing" or even the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards apply. 2003Id. 851 P.2d at 1363-64 . ¶ 77 This Court holds that, in the specific context of Section 1915(b) placements, the party opposing the statutory preferences must establish good cause according to the "clear and convincing" evidence standard. 374 ¶ 78 This holding is consistent with the standard of proof applicable to subsequent stages where "clear and convincing" or even the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards apply.	1	2003–2003
Rucker v. Michigan Board of Medicine green michctapp · 1984 2 sentences 1996Schultz, 375 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (dentist); Rucker v. Michigan Bd. of Medicine, 138 Mich.App. 209 , 360 N.W.2d 154 (1984) (physician); In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982) (physician); Sherman v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art, 407 A.2d 595 (D.C.Ct.App.1979) (physician). [2] Several other states have noted and stayed with the preponderance of the evidence standard in the absence of a constitutional challenge. 1996Schultz, 375 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (dentist); Rucker v. Michigan Bd. of Medicine, 138 Mieh.App. 209, 360 N.W.2d 154 (1984) (physician); In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982) (physician); Sherman v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art, 407 A.2d 595 (D.C.Ct.App.1979) (physician). 2 Several other states have noted and stayed with the preponderance of the evidence standard in the absence of a constitutional challenge.	1	1996–1996
Ferguson v. Hamrick green ala · 1980 2 sentences 1996Golan v. Sobol, 195 A.D.2d 634 , 599 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dept.1993) (doctor); Matter of the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1989) (dentist); Ferguson v. Hamrick, 388 So.2d 981 (Ala.1980) (doctor); In re Kincheloe, 272 N.C. 116 , 157 S.E.2d 833 (1967) (doctor); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes, 388 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Civ. 1996Golan v. Sobol, 195 A.D.2d 634 , 599 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dept.1993) (doctor); Matter of the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488 (Minn.1989) (dentist); Ferguson v. Hamrick, 388 So.2d 981 (Ala.1980) (doctor); In re Kincheloe, 272 N.C. 116 , 157 S.E.2d 833 (1967) (doctor); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes, 388 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Civ.App.1965) (doctor).	1	1996–1996
Gandhi v. State Medical Examining Board green wisctapp · 1992 2 sentences 1996Swiller v. Commissioner of Public Health & Addiction Serv., 1995 W.L. 611754 (Conn. October 5, 1995) (chiropractor); Sobel v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 130 Or.App. 374 , 882 P.2d 606 (1994) (pharmacist); Pickett v. Utah Dept. of Commerce, 858 P.2d 187 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (pharmacist); Petition of Grimm, 138 N.H. 42 , 635 A.2d 456 (1993) (psychologist); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295 (1992) (physician); Eaves v. Bd. of Med. 1996Swiller v. Commissioner of Public Health & Addiction Serv., 1995 W.L. 611754 (Conn. October 5, 1995) (chiropractor); Sobel v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 130 Or.App. 374 , 882 P.2d 606 (1994) (pharmacist); Pickett v. Utah Dept. of Commerce, 858 P.2d 187 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (pharmacist); Petition of Grimm, 138 N.H. 42 , 635 A.2d 456 (1993) (psychologist); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295 (1992) (physician); Eaves v. Bd. of Med.	1	1996–1996
Santosky v. Kramer green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 1996The dissent relies on the fact that thirty-nine medical boards require a preponderance of the evidence standard and only eighteen require clear and convincing evidence. “[M]inimum requirements of [due process] being a matter of federal law [cannot be] diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse official action.” Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 , 100 S.Ct. 1254, 1263 , 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980); Santosky, 455 U.S. at 755 , 102 S.Ct. at 1395-96 . 1996The dissent relies on the fact that thirty-nine medical boards require a preponderance of the evidence standard and only eighteen require clear and convincing evidence. “[M]inimum requirements of [due process] being a matter of federal law [cannot be] diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse official action.” Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 , 100 S.Ct. 1254, 1263 , 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980); Santosky, 455 U.S. at 755 , 102 S.Ct. at 1395-96 .	1	1996–1996
In Re the Revocation of the License of Polk green nj · 1982	1	1996–1996
In re Grimm green nh · 1993 2 sentences 1996Swiller v. Commissioner of Public Health & Addiction Serv., 1995 W.L. 611754 (Conn. October 5, 1995) (chiropractor); Sobel v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 130 Or.App. 374 , 882 P.2d 606 (1994) (pharmacist); Pickett v. Utah Dept. of Commerce, 858 P.2d 187 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (pharmacist); Petition of Grimm, 138 N.H. 42 , 635 A.2d 456 (1993) (psychologist); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295 (1992) (physician); Eaves v. Bd. of Med. 1996Swiller v. Commissioner of Public Health & Addiction Serv., 1995 W.L. 611754 (Conn. October 5, 1995) (chiropractor); Sobel v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 130 Or.App. 374 , 882 P.2d 606 (1994) (pharmacist); Pickett v. Utah Dept. of Commerce, 858 P.2d 187 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (pharmacist); Petition of Grimm, 138 N.H. 42 , 635 A.2d 456 (1993) (psychologist); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295 (1992) (physician); Eaves v. Bd. of Med.	1	1996–1996
Pickett v. Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Occupational & Professional Licensing green utahctapp · 1993	1	1996–1996
Matter of Schultz, Etc. green minnctapp · 1985 2 sentences 1996Schultz, 375 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (dentist); Rucker v. Michigan Bd. of Medicine, 138 Mich.App. 209 , 360 N.W.2d 154 (1984) (physician); In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982) (physician); Sherman v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art, 407 A.2d 595 (D.C.Ct.App.1979) (physician). [2] Several other states have noted and stayed with the preponderance of the evidence standard in the absence of a constitutional challenge. 1996Schultz, 375 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (dentist); Rucker v. Michigan Bd. of Medicine, 138 Mieh.App. 209, 360 N.W.2d 154 (1984) (physician); In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982) (physician); Sherman v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art, 407 A.2d 595 (D.C.Ct.App.1979) (physician). 2 Several other states have noted and stayed with the preponderance of the evidence standard in the absence of a constitutional challenge.	1	1996–1996
Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes neutral texapp · 1965 2 sentences 1996Golan v. Sobol, 195 A.D.2d 634 , 599 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dept.1993) (doctor); Matter of the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1989) (dentist); Ferguson v. Hamrick, 388 So.2d 981 (Ala.1980) (doctor); In re Kincheloe, 272 N.C. 116 , 157 S.E.2d 833 (1967) (doctor); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes, 388 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Civ. 1996Golan v. Sobol, 195 A.D.2d 634 , 599 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dept.1993) (doctor); Matter of the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488 (Minn.1989) (dentist); Ferguson v. Hamrick, 388 So.2d 981 (Ala.1980) (doctor); In re Kincheloe, 272 N.C. 116 , 157 S.E.2d 833 (1967) (doctor); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes, 388 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Civ.App.1965) (doctor).	1	1996–1996
Golan v. Sobol neutral nyappdiv · 1993 2 sentences 1996Golan v. Sobol, 195 A.D.2d 634 , 599 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dept.1993) (doctor); Matter of the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488 (Minn.1989) (dentist); Ferguson v. Hamrick, 388 So.2d 981 (Ala.1980) (doctor); In re Kincheloe, 272 N.C. 116 , 157 S.E.2d 833 (1967) (doctor); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes, 388 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Civ.App.1965) (doctor). 1996Golan v. Sobol, 195 A.D.2d 634 , 599 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dept.1993) (doctor); Matter of the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488 (Minn.1989) (dentist); Ferguson v. Hamrick, 388 So.2d 981 (Ala.1980) (doctor); In re Kincheloe, 272 N.C. 116 , 157 S.E.2d 833 (1967) (doctor); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes, 388 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Civ.App.1965) (doctor).	1	1996–1996
In Re Kincheloe green nc · 1967 2 sentences 1996Golan v. Sobol, 195 A.D.2d 634 , 599 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dept.1993) (doctor); Matter of the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488 (Minn.1989) (dentist); Ferguson v. Hamrick, 388 So.2d 981 (Ala.1980) (doctor); In re Kincheloe, 272 N.C. 116 , 157 S.E.2d 833 (1967) (doctor); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes, 388 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Civ.App.1965) (doctor). 1996Golan v. Sobol, 195 A.D.2d 634 , 599 N.Y.S.2d 752 (3d Dept.1993) (doctor); Matter of the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488 (Minn.1989) (dentist); Ferguson v. Hamrick, 388 So.2d 981 (Ala.1980) (doctor); In re Kincheloe, 272 N.C. 116 , 157 S.E.2d 833 (1967) (doctor); Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Haynes, 388 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Civ.App.1965) (doctor).	1	1996–1996
Sherman v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art green dc · 1979 2 sentences 1996Schultz, 375 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (dentist); Rucker v. Michigan Bd. of Medicine, 138 Mich.App. 209 , 360 N.W.2d 154 (1984) (physician); In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982) (physician); Sherman v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art, 407 A.2d 595 (D.C.Ct.App.1979) (physician). [2] Several other states have noted and stayed with the preponderance of the evidence standard in the absence of a constitutional challenge. 1996Schultz, 375 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (dentist); Rucker v. Michigan Bd. of Medicine, 138 Mieh.App. 209, 360 N.W.2d 154 (1984) (physician); In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982) (physician); Sherman v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art, 407 A.2d 595 (D.C.Ct.App.1979) (physician). 2 Several other states have noted and stayed with the preponderance of the evidence standard in the absence of a constitutional challenge.	1	1996–1996
In Re the Disciplinary Action Against the Dentist License of Wang green minn · 1989	1	1996–1996
Vitek v. Jones green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1996The dissent relies on the fact that thirty-nine medical boards require a preponderance of the evidence standard and only eighteen require clear and convincing evidence. “[M]inimum requirements of [due process] being a matter of federal law [cannot be] diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse official action.” Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 , 100 S.Ct. 1254, 1263 , 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980); Santosky, 455 U.S. at 755 , 102 S.Ct. at 1395-96 . 1996The dissent relies on the fact that thirty-nine medical boards require a preponderance of the evidence standard and only eighteen require clear and convincing evidence. “[M]inimum requirements of [due process] being a matter of federal law [cannot be] diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse official action.” Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 , 100 S.Ct. 1254, 1263 , 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980); Santosky, 455 U.S. at 755 , 102 S.Ct. at 1395-96 .	1	1996–1996
Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy green orctapp · 1994 2 sentences 1996Swiller v. Commissioner of Public Health & Addiction Serv., 1995 W.L. 611754 (Conn. October 5, 1995) (chiropractor); Sobel v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 130 Or.App. 374 , 882 P.2d 606 (1994) (pharmacist); Pickett v. Utah Dept. of Commerce, 858 P.2d 187 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (pharmacist); Petition of Grimm, 138 N.H. 42 , 635 A.2d 456 (1993) (psychologist); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295 (1992) (physician); Eaves v. Bd. of Med. 1996Swiller v. Commissioner of Public Health & Addiction Serv., 1995 W.L. 611754 (Conn. October 5, 1995) (chiropractor); Sobel v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 130 Or.App. 374 , 882 P.2d 606 (1994) (pharmacist); Pickett v. Utah Dept. of Commerce, 858 P.2d 187 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (pharmacist); Petition of Grimm, 138 N.H. 42 , 635 A.2d 456 (1993) (psychologist); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295 (1992) (physician); Eaves v. Bd. of Med.	1	1996–1996
In Re the Adoption of Darren Todd H. green okla · 1980	1	1981–1981
Application of Baggett green okla · 1974	1	1976–1976

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 25u.s.c.1912 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 6-211 (3) USC § 25u.s.c.1901 (3)

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

TX 474 (1939–2026) CA 349 (1967–2026) PA 323 (1982–2026) TN 300 (1980–2026) IL 168 (1967–2026) MI 137 (1980–2026) KY 132 (1978–2026) WA 128 (1971–2026) GA 126 (1983–2026) VA 124 (1922–2025) OH 117 (1984–2026) NC 91 (1982–2026) CO 88 (1982–2026) MD 87 (1971–2026) NY 87 (1973–2026) SC 83 (1909–2026) NJ 82 (1975–2026) FL 76 (1963–2026) LA 64 (1977–2019) CT 64 (1975–2026) WV 59 (1982–2026) UT 48 (1981–2025) MN 47 (1973–2026) KS 46 (1993–2026) DC 45 (1970–2026) AZ 39 (1981–2025) WY 39 (1979–2026) AK 36 (1977–2025) MA 36 (1978–2025) MO 36 (1993–2025) IN 36 (1980–2026) DE 34 (1972–2026) OR 31 (1975–2024) ME 29 (1974–2023) NV 28 (1980–2025) IA 28 (1980–2025) NM 28 (1978–2023) WI 27 (1981–2025) HI 27 (1989–2026) SD 23 (1975–2026) VT 22 (1983–2021) ND 18 (1981–2023) NH 18 (1982–2024) OK 17 (1976–2024) AL 16 (1992–2017) MS 16 (1988–2026) ID 13 (1992–2022) AR 11 (1955–2024) NE 10 (1985–2023) MT 9 (1973–2022) RI 5 (1991–2026) VI 3 (2011–2015)

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