prudential rule in Oklahoma

17 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2021 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 (15)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Initiative Petition No. 347 State Question No. 639green okla · 1991 · cited in 8 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1991–2003 2 sentences 2003The prudential rule of necessity, adhered to by all state and federal courts, holds that constitutional issues must not be resolved in advance of strict necessity. - In re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672, 1996 OK 122, ¶13 , 927 P.2d 558, 565 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55, 12 , 813 P.2d 1019, 1037 (Opala, C.J., concurring); Smith v. Westinghouse Elec. 2003The prudential rule of necessity, adhered to by all state and federal courts, holds that constitutional issues must not be resolved in advance of strict necessity. - In re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672, 1996 OK 122, ¶13 , 927 P.2d 558, 565 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55, 12 , 813 P.2d 1019, 1037 (Opala, C.J., concurring); Smith v. Westinghouse Elec.	7	8
Apache Corp. v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commissiongreen okla · 2004 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2013–2021 2 sentences 2021Tax Comm'n , 2004 OK 48 , Â¶ 10, 98 P.3d 1061, 1064 (explaining exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prudential rule when exhaustion is not required by statute, and contrasting the prudential rule with the legislature making exhaustion mandatory by creating an exclusive statutory remedy). 33 See , e.g. , Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co. , 1977 OK 164 , Â¶ 4, 569 P.2d 974, 976 (distinguishing a remedial or procedural statute which does not create, enlarge, diminish, or destroy vested substantive legal right). 2021Tax Comm'n , 2004 OK 48 , Â¶ 10, 98 P.3d 1061, 1064 (explaining exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prudential rule when exhaustion is not required by statute, and contrasting the prudential rule with the legislature making exhaustion mandatory by creating an exclusive statutory remedy). 33 See , e.g. , Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co. , 1977 OK 164 , Â¶ 4, 569 P.2d 974, 976 (distinguishing a remedial or procedural statute which does not create, enlarge, diminish, or destroy vested substantive legal right).	2	2
In Re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627green okla · 1990 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1992–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re 1992See In re Initiative Petition No. 347 State Question No. 639, Okl., 813 P.2d 1019, 1037 (1991) (Opala, C.J., concurring); In re Initiative Petition No. 349 (No. 76,437, February 20, 1991) (Opala, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); In re Initiative Petition No. 341, Okl., 796 P.2d 267, 275 (1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in result); In re Initiative Petition No. 317, Etc., Okl., 648 P.2d 1207, 1222 (1982) (Opala, J., concurring in the judgment); In re Initiative Petition No. 315, Etc., Okl., 649 P.2d 545, 554-555 (1982) (Opala, J., concurring in result). [4] The prudential rule	1	2
In Re Initiative Petition No. 315, State Question No. 553green okla · 1982 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1992–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re 1992See In re Initiative Petition No. 347 State Question No. 639, Okl., 813 P.2d 1019, 1037 (1991) (Opala, C.J., concurring); In re Initiative Petition No. 349 (No. 76,437, February 20, 1991) (Opala, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); In re Initiative Petition No. 341, Okl., 796 P.2d 267, 275 (1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in result); In re Initiative Petition No. 317, Etc., Okl., 648 P.2d 1207, 1222 (1982) (Opala, J., concurring in the judgment); In re Initiative Petition No. 315, Etc., Okl., 649 P.2d 545, 554-555 (1982) (Opala, J., concurring in result). [4] The prudential rule	1	2
Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co.green okla · 1977 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021Tax Comm'n , 2004 OK 48 , Â¶ 10, 98 P.3d 1061, 1064 (explaining exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prudential rule when exhaustion is not required by statute, and contrasting the prudential rule with the legislature making exhaustion mandatory by creating an exclusive statutory remedy). 33 See , e.g. , Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co. , 1977 OK 164 , Â¶ 4, 569 P.2d 974, 976 (distinguishing a remedial or procedural statute which does not create, enlarge, diminish, or destroy vested substantive legal right). 2021Tax Comm'n , 2004 OK 48 , Â¶ 10, 98 P.3d 1061, 1064 (explaining exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prudential rule when exhaustion is not required by statute, and contrasting the prudential rule with the legislature making exhaustion mandatory by creating an exclusive statutory remedy). 33 See , e.g. , Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co. , 1977 OK 164 , Â¶ 4, 569 P.2d 974, 976 (distinguishing a remedial or procedural statute which does not create, enlarge, diminish, or destroy vested substantive legal right).	1	1
Smith v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.green okla · 1987 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003Corp., 1987 OK 3, ¶2, n. 3 , 732 P.2d 466, 468, n. 3 ; I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 936 , 103 S.Ct 2764, 2776-77 , 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983); Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346-47 , 56 S.Ct. 466, 483 , 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). 2003Corp., 1987 OK 3, ¶2, n. 3 , 732 P.2d 466, 468, n. 3 ; I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 936 , 103 S.Ct 2764, 2776-77 , 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983); Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346-47 , 56 S.Ct. 466, 483 , 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).	1	1
In Re Initiative Petition No. 364green okla · 1996 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re	1	1
American Bank of Commerce v. Chavisgreen okla · 1982 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997See State v. Lynch, Okl., 796 P.2d 1150, 1166 (1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Tedford v. Divine, Okl., 734 P.2d 283, 285 (1987); American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis, Okl., 651 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1982); Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, Okl., 265 P.2d 711, 715 (1954) (Halley, C.J., dissenting). .The prudential rule of strict necessity is adhered to today by all state and federal courts. 1997See State v. Lynch, Okl., 796 P.2d 1150, 1166 (1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Tedford v. Divine, Okl., 734 P.2d 283, 285 (1987); American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis, Okl., 651 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1982); Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, Okl., 265 P.2d 711, 715 (1954) (Halley, C.J., dissenting). [49] The prudential rule of strict necessity is adhered to today by all state and federal courts.	1	1
Olinghouse v. Olinghousegreen okla · 1954 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997See State v. Lynch, Okl., 796 P.2d 1150, 1166 (1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Tedford v. Divine, Okl., 734 P.2d 283, 285 (1987); American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis, Okl., 651 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1982); Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, Okl., 265 P.2d 711, 715 (1954) (Halley, C.J., dissenting). .The prudential rule of strict necessity is adhered to today by all state and federal courts. 1997See State v. Lynch, Okl., 796 P.2d 1150, 1166 (1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Tedford v. Divine, Okl., 734 P.2d 283, 285 (1987); American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis, Okl., 651 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1982); Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, Okl., 265 P.2d 711, 715 (1954) (Halley, C.J., dissenting). [49] The prudential rule of strict necessity is adhered to today by all state and federal courts.	1	1
State v. Lynchgreen okla · 1990 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997See State v. Lynch, Okl., 796 P.2d 1150, 1166 (1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Tedford v. Divine, Okl., 734 P.2d 283, 285 (1987); American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis, Okl., 651 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1982); Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, Okl., 265 P.2d 711, 715 (1954) (Halley, C.J., dissenting). .The prudential rule of strict necessity is adhered to today by all state and federal courts. 1997See State v. Lynch, Okl., 796 P.2d 1150, 1166 (1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Tedford v. Divine, Okl., 734 P.2d 283, 285 (1987); American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis, Okl., 651 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1982); Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, Okl., 265 P.2d 711, 715 (1954) (Halley, C.J., dissenting). [49] The prudential rule of strict necessity is adhered to today by all state and federal courts.	1	1
Tedford v. Divinegreen okla · 1987 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997See State v. Lynch, Okl., 796 P.2d 1150, 1166 (1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Tedford v. Divine, Okl., 734 P.2d 283, 285 (1987); American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis, Okl., 651 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1982); Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, Okl., 265 P.2d 711, 715 (1954) (Halley, C.J., dissenting). .The prudential rule of strict necessity is adhered to today by all state and federal courts. 1997See State v. Lynch, Okl., 796 P.2d 1150, 1166 (1990) (Opala, V.C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Tedford v. Divine, Okl., 734 P.2d 283, 285 (1987); American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis, Okl., 651 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1982); Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, Okl., 265 P.2d 711, 715 (1954) (Halley, C.J., dissenting). [49] The prudential rule of strict necessity is adhered to today by all state and federal courts.	1	1
Helms v. Secretary of the Treasurygreen dcd · 1989 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993The District of Columbia Circuit has developed an additional prudential requirement called "equitable discretion.” Helms v. Secretary of Treasury, 721 F.Supp. 1354, 1357-1359 (D.D.C.1989). . 1993The District of Columbia Circuit has developed an additional prudential requirement called "equitable discretion." Helms v. Secretary of Treasury, 721 F. Supp. 1354, 1357-1359 (D.D.C. 1989). [31] Supra note 2. [32] For the pertinent text of Art. 5, § 56, Okl.	1	1
Draper v. Stategreen okla · 1980 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 1 sentence 1993Const., see supra note 1. [33] Draper v. State, Okl., 621 P.2d 1142, 1146 (1980); Walters, supra note 2 . [34] Supra note 2. [35] The Governor cannot approve the bill's interrelated substantive law provisions and line item veto the appropriation provisions.	1	1
In Re Initiative Petition No. 317, Etc.green okla · 1982 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
Independent School District No. 9 v. Glassgreen okla · 1982 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991	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 (19)

Case	Cited	Years
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority green scotus · 1936 2 sentences 2003Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346-47 , 56 S.Ct. 466, 483 , 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); In re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672, 1996 OK 122, ¶ 13 , 927 P.2d 558, 565 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55, ¶ 2 , 813 P.2d 1019, 1037 (Opala, C.J., concurring); Smith v. Westinghouse Elec. 2003Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346-47 , 56 S.Ct. 466, 483 , 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); In re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672, 1996 OK 122, ¶ 13 , 927 P.2d 558, 565 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55, ¶ 2 , 813 P.2d 1019, 1037 (Opala, C.J., concurring); Smith v. Westinghouse Elec.	4	1992–2003
Waste Connections, Inc. v. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality green okla · 2002 2 sentences 2013Quality , 2002 OK 94, 61 P.3d 219 by holding that: In cases in which exhaustion of remedies is not required by statute, this Court has held that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies is a prudential rule, rather than a jurisdictional bar. 2013Quality , 2002 OK 94, 61 P.3d 219 by holding that: In cases in which exhaustion of remedies is not required by statute, this Court has held that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies is a prudential rule, rather than a jurisdictional bar.	3	2004–2013
In Re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672 green okla · 1996 2 sentences 2003The prudential rule of necessity, adhered to by all state and federal courts, holds that constitutional issues must not be resolved in advance of strict necessity. - In re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672, 1996 OK 122, ¶13 , 927 P.2d 558, 565 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55, 12 , 813 P.2d 1019, 1037 (Opala, C.J., concurring); Smith v. Westinghouse Elec. 2003The prudential rule of necessity, adhered to by all state and federal courts, holds that constitutional issues must not be resolved in advance of strict necessity. - In re Initiative Petition No. 363, State Question No. 672, 1996 OK 122, ¶13 , 927 P.2d 558, 565 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55, 12 , 813 P.2d 1019, 1037 (Opala, C.J., concurring); Smith v. Westinghouse Elec.	3	2002–2003
Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2003Corp., 1987 OK 3, ¶2, n. 3 , 732 P.2d 466, 468, n. 3 ; I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 936 , 103 S.Ct 2764, 2776-77 , 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983); Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346-47 , 56 S.Ct. 466, 483 , 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). 2003Corp., 1987 OK 3, ¶2, n. 3 , 732 P.2d 466, 468, n. 3 ; I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 936 , 103 S.Ct 2764, 2776-77 , 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983); Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346-47 , 56 S.Ct. 466, 483 , 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).	3	1992–2003
Walker v. Group Health Services, Inc. green okla · 2001 2 sentences 2004Id.; Walker v. Group Health Services, Inc., 2001 OK 2, ¶ 38 , 37 P.3d 749, 761-62 ; Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 451 , 117 S.Ct. 1404, 1412 , 137 L.Ed.2d 661 (1997). 2004Id.; Walker v. Group Health Services, Inc., 2001 OK 2, ¶ 38 , 37 P.3d 749, 761-62 ; Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 451 , 117 S.Ct. 1404, 1412 , 137 L.Ed.2d 661 (1997).	2	2002–2004
Glacken v. Andrew green okla · 1918 2 sentences 2013Hobbs v. German-American Doctors, 1904 OK 60 , 14 Okla. 236 , 78 P. 356, 357 ; Glacken v. Andrew, 1918 OK 20 , 69 Okla. 61 , 169 P. 1096, 1097 . . 2013Hobbs v. German-American Doctors, 1904 OK 60 , 14 Okla. 236 , 78 P. 356, 357 ; Glacken v. Andrew, 1918 OK 20 , 69 Okla. 61 , 169 P. 1096, 1097 . .	1	2013–2013
Hobbs v. the German-American Doctors green · 1904 2 sentences 2013Hobbs v. German-American Doctors, 1904 OK 60 , 14 Okla. 236 , 78 P. 356, 357 ; Glacken v. Andrew, 1918 OK 20 , 69 Okla. 61 , 169 P. 1096, 1097 . . 2013Hobbs v. German-American Doctors, 1904 OK 60 , 14 Okla. 236 , 78 P. 356, 357 ; Glacken v. Andrew, 1918 OK 20 , 69 Okla. 61 , 169 P. 1096, 1097 . .	1	2013–2013
Strate v. A-1 Contractors green scotus · 1997 2 sentences 2004Id.; Walker v. Group Health Services, Inc., 2001 OK 2, ¶ 38 , 37 P.3d 749, 761-62 ; Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 451 , 117 S.Ct. 1404, 1412 , 137 L.Ed.2d 661 (1997). 2004Id.; Walker v. Group Health Services, Inc., 2001 OK 2, ¶ 38 , 37 P.3d 749, 761-62 ; Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 451 , 117 S.Ct. 1404, 1412 , 137 L.Ed.2d 661 (1997).	1	2004–2004
In Re Initiative Petition No. 362 State Question 669 green okla · 1995 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re	1	2002–2002
In Re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642 green okla · 1992 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re	1	2002–2002
In Re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640 green okla · 1992 1 sentence 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re	1	2002–2002
In Re Initiative Petition No. 332 green okla · 1989 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re	1	2002–2002
Moore v. City of East Cleveland green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 2002Moore v. City of East Cleveland Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 524-25 , 97 S.Ct. 1932 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977); Harline v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 148 F.3d 1199 , 1203 (10th Cir.1998). ¶ 8 In cases in which exhaustion of remedies is not required by statute, this Court has held that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies is a prudential rule, rather than a jurisdictional bar. 2002Moore v. City of East Cleveland Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 524-25 , 97 S.Ct. 1932 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977); Harline v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 148 F.3d 1199 , 1203 (10th Cir.1998). ¶ 8 In cases in which exhaustion of remedies is not required by statute, this Court has held that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies is a prudential rule, rather than a jurisdictional bar.	1	2002–2002
In Re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman green okla · 1975 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re 2002See, e.g., In re Initiative Petition No. 364, State Question No. 673, 1996 OK 129 , 930 P.2d 186 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77 , 899 P.2d 1145 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122 , 838 P.2d 1 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 348, State Question No. 640, 1991 OK 110 , 820 P.2d 772 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 347, State Question No. 639, 1991 OK 55 , 813 P.2d 1019 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 341, State Question No. 627, 1990 OK. 53, 796 P.2d 267 ; In re Initiative Petition No. 332, 1989 OK 93 , 776 P.2d 556 ; In re	1	2002–2002
Harline v. Drug Enforcement Administration green ca10 · 1998 1 sentence 2002Moore v. City of East Cleveland Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 524-25 , 97 S.Ct. 1932 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977); Harline v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 148 F.3d 1199 , 1203 (10th Cir.1998). ¶ 8 In cases in which exhaustion of remedies is not required by statute, this Court has held that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies is a prudential rule, rather than a jurisdictional bar.	1	2002–2002
Anderson v. Dyco Petroleum Corp. green okla · 1989 1 sentence 1993Relying on our opinion in Anderson v. Dyco Petroleum Corp.; 782 P.2d 1367 , (Okla.1989), the FDIC claims that Prudential has waived any error relating to the award of interest because Prudential referred to its right to interest on its “claim” in its briefs, rather than referring to its right to interest on a “dividend.” This is a distinction without a difference.	1	1993–1993
Johnson v. Walters green okla · 1991 1 sentence 1993Const., see supra note 1. [33] Draper v. State, Okl., 621 P.2d 1142, 1146 (1980); Walters, supra note 2 . [34] Supra note 2. [35] The Governor cannot approve the bill's interrelated substantive law provisions and line item veto the appropriation provisions.	1	1993–1993
Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. green scotus · 1985	1	1992–1992
In Re Snyder green scotus · 1985	1	1992–1992

Where else courts name it

TX 38 (1986–2026) OR 30 (2008–2025) MI 26 (2006–2026) KS 22 (1989–2026) AZ 22 (1983–2025) OK 17 (1991–2021) ME 15 (1986–2021) CA 11 (1999–2023) CO 9 (1982–2026) AL 8 (1984–2006) PA 8 (1996–2017) FL 8 (2004–2025) MN 8 (1985–2024) HI 7 (1984–2019) NY 7 (1902–2025) MT 7 (2011–2025) WA 7 (2005–2018) UT 6 (2006–2018) NM 6 (2003–2022) TN 4 (1986–2020) IL 4 (1987–2025) NC 4 (2021–2022) NJ 4 (1995–2018) OH 4 (2000–2024) ND 4 (1998–2018) IA 3 (2007–2020) MA 3 (1974–1996) WI 2 (2016–2019) LA 2 (2004–2007) NE 2 (2022–2023) RI 2 (1993–2008) AK 2 (2022–2025)

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