16 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1929–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Morgangreen2 sentences2018Melissa Wynn claimed entitlement to due process as a "prospective heir" of May Wynn's estate, citing Kaylor v. Kaylor , 1935 OK 530 , 45 P.2d 743, 744 (regarding unrecorded mortgage as binding between assignor and assignee, Kaylor did not address notice required by state actor for delinquent tax sale with respect to prospective heirs) and Davis v. Morgan , 1939 OK 468 , 95 P.2d 856, 857 (involved an heir in possession of real estate in which he owned an undivided interest, the decision explicitly expresses no opinion regarding an heir not in possession and does not speak to the position of a " 2018Melissa Wynn claimed entitlement to due process as a "prospective heir" of May Wynn's estate, citing Kaylor v. Kaylor , 1935 OK 530 , 45 P.2d 743, 744 (regarding unrecorded mortgage as binding between assignor and assignee, Kaylor did not address notice required by state actor for delinquent tax sale with respect to prospective heirs) and Davis v. Morgan , 1939 OK 468 , 95 P.2d 856, 857 (involved an heir in possession of real estate in which he owned an undivided interest, the decision explicitly expresses no opinion regarding an heir not in possession and does not speak to the position of a " | 1 | 1 |
Kaylor v. Kaylorgreen2 sentences2018Melissa Wynn claimed entitlement to due process as a "prospective heir" of May Wynn's estate, citing Kaylor v. Kaylor , 1935 OK 530 , 45 P.2d 743, 744 (regarding unrecorded mortgage as binding between assignor and assignee, Kaylor did not address notice required by state actor for delinquent tax sale with respect to prospective heirs) and Davis v. Morgan , 1939 OK 468 , 95 P.2d 856, 857 (involved an heir in possession of real estate in which he owned an undivided interest, the decision explicitly expresses no opinion regarding an heir not in possession and does not speak to the position of a " 2018Melissa Wynn claimed entitlement to due process as a "prospective heir" of May Wynn's estate, citing Kaylor v. Kaylor , 1935 OK 530 , 45 P.2d 743, 744 (regarding unrecorded mortgage as binding between assignor and assignee, Kaylor did not address notice required by state actor for delinquent tax sale with respect to prospective heirs) and Davis v. Morgan , 1939 OK 468 , 95 P.2d 856, 857 (involved an heir in possession of real estate in which he owned an undivided interest, the decision explicitly expresses no opinion regarding an heir not in possession and does not speak to the position of a " | 1 | 1 |
Craft v. Wipfgreen1 sentence2011He [or she] must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it." Craft v. Wipf 836 F.2d 412, 416 (8th Cir.1987) (quoting Board of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. the Territory of Oklahomagreen2 sentences2011Mitchell, 7 Okla. at 533-34 , 54 P. at 784 (emphasis added). ¶ 54 In Barnes v. State, 1963 OK CR 102 , 387 P.2d 146 , this Court affirmed a conviction of larceny of an automobile. 2011Mitchell, 7 Okla. at 533-34 , 54 P. at 784 (emphasis added). ¶ 54 In Barnes v. State, 1963 OK CR 102 , 387 P.2d 146 , this Court affirmed a conviction of larceny of an automobile. | 1 | 1 |
Carnes v. Parkergreen1 sentence1992Carnes , at 1510. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
green
2 sentences2018Appellants argue Melissa Wynn "held a legitimate claim of entitlement to the property" and "constitutional due process entitlement is not limited to the legal owner of the real property," citing Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth , 408 U.S. 564, 571-72 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (regarding claims to due process made by a non-tenured professor when his contract was not renewed, the employment contract at issue did not involve delinquent taxes or issues of notice such as those presented in this case). 2018Appellants argue Melissa Wynn "held a legitimate claim of entitlement to the property" and "constitutional due process entitlement is not limited to the legal owner of the real property," citing Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth , 408 U.S. 564, 571-72 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (regarding claims to due process made by a non-tenured professor when his contract was not renewed, the employment contract at issue did not involve delinquent taxes or issues of notice such as those presented in this case). | 7 | 1983–2018 |
Lockhart v. State
neutral
2 sentences1937No instruction was requested, and the court omitted to instruct the jury on this theory of the defense.” In Lockhart v. State, 10 Okla. 1929No instruction was requested, and the court omitted to instruct the jury on this theory of the defense.” In Lockhart v. State, 10 Okla. | 2 | 1929–1937 |
Unah by and Through Unah v. Martin
green
1 sentence2023Unah v. Martin , 1984 OK 2 , 676 P.2d 1366 , 11 an extension of the rule we decline to make. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wood v. Independent School District No. 141
green
1 sentence2016Dist, No. 141 of Pottawatomie County, 1983 OK 30 , ¶ 9, 661 P.2d 892, 894 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Barnes v. State
green
2 sentences2011Mitchell, 7 Okla. at 533-34 , 54 P. at 784 (emphasis added). ¶ 54 In Barnes v. State, 1963 OK CR 102 , 387 P.2d 146 , this Court affirmed a conviction of larceny of an automobile. 2011Mitchell, 7 Okla. at 533-34 , 54 P. at 784 (emphasis added). ¶ 54 In Barnes v. State, 1963 OK CR 102 , 387 P.2d 146 , this Court affirmed a conviction of larceny of an automobile. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Skinner v. John Deere Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2005Because disagreements *1112 can arise concerning the amount of coverage, cause of loss, and breach of policy conditions, the tort of bad faith does not prevent the insurer from resisting payment or resorting to a judicial forum to resolve a legitimate dispute." Skinner v. John Deere Insurance Company, 2000 OK 18, ¶ 16 , 998 P.2d 1219, 1223 . 2005Because disagreements *1112 can arise concerning the amount of coverage, cause of loss, and breach of policy conditions, the tort of bad faith does not prevent the insurer from resisting payment or resorting to a judicial forum to resolve a legitimate dispute." Skinner v. John Deere Insurance Company, 2000 OK 18, ¶ 16 , 998 P.2d 1219, 1223 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Williams v. Ford Motor Company
green
2 sentences1974This has been otherwise referred to as contributory fault, Williams v. Ford Motor Company, Mo. App., 454 S.W.2d 611 , and discussed in terms of contributory negligence, comment n, § 402A, Restatement of the Law, Torts, Second, for the "... defense which *1367 consists of voluntary and unreasonably encountering a known danger ... will, in general, relieve the defendant of strict liability." Prosser, The Law of Torts, 3rd Ed., § 78. 1974This has been otherwise referred to as contributory fault, Williams v. Ford Motor Company, Mo.App., 454 S.W.2d 611 , and discussed in terms of contributory negligence, comment n, § 402A, Restatement of the Law, Torts, Second, for the “ . . . defense which consists of voluntary and unreasonably encountering a known danger . . . will, in general, relieve the defendant of strict liability.” Prosser, The Law of Torts, 3rd Ed., § 78. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Henry v. A. B. Dick Co.
red
2 sentences1965Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 , 32 Sup.Ct. 364 , 56 L.Ed. 645 , Ann.Cas.1913D, 880, in that the reason for insisting upon a contract is to restrict the sharing in a certain legitimate privilege, to those who pay for the privilege, and to prevent, by a mere transfer of the trading stamps, the bestowal of the advantage of giving out the stamps, and of getting trade thereby, upon any person who might by holding the stamps be entitled to claim the rights of redemption. 1965Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 , 32 Sup.Ct. 364 , 56 L.Ed. 645 , Ann.Cas.1913D, 880, in that the reason for insisting upon a contract is to restrict the sharing in a certain legitimate privilege, to those who pay for the privilege, and to prevent, by a mere transfer of the trading stamps, the bestowal of the advantage of giving out the stamps, and of getting trade thereby, upon any person who might by holding the stamps be entitled to claim the rights of redemption. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Consolidated National Bank of Tucson v. Van Slyke
green
1 sentence1935Bank v. Van Slyke, supra. It is persuasive in this case to note that the sections of our statute governing this question (secs. 98, 101, and 107, O. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.