16 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pan v. Banegreen2 sentences2013Therefore, Volkl must rely on the relation back doctrine to bring his petition against Michael Byford within the statute of limitations. 16 Oklahoma's relation back doctrine, adapted from Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "is remedial and promotes the general purpose of the federal rules by 'providing the opportunity for a claim to be tried on its merits rather than being dismissed on procedural technicalities, when the policy behind the statute of limitations has been addressed." Pan v. Bane, 2006 OK 57, ¶ 9 , 141 P.3d 555, 559 (quoting 8 Moore's Federal Practice, § 15.19[8][ 2013Therefore, Volkl must rely on the relation back doctrine to bring his petition against Michael Byford within the statute of limitations. 16 Oklahoma's relation back doctrine, adapted from Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "is remedial and promotes the general purpose of the federal rules by 'providing the opportunity for a claim to be tried on its merits rather than being dismissed on procedural technicalities, when the policy behind the statute of limitations has been addressed." Pan v. Bane, 2006 OK 57, ¶ 9 , 141 P.3d 555, 559 (quoting 8 Moore's Federal Practice, § 15.19[8][ | 2 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cantrellgreen2 sentences2017Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cantrell , 1987 OK 17, n. 2, 734 P.2d 1292, 1294 (Opala, J., joined by Hargrave, V.C.J., Hodges and Simms, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part, citations including Black's Law Dictionary and explaining the relation-back doctrine is "a principle that an act done today is considered to have been done at an earlier time." Black's Law Dictionary , 1158 (5th ed.1979)). 15 See , e.g. , Salyer v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. , 1986 OK 70, 727 P.2d 1361, 1363 citing Yery v. Yery , 1981 OK 46, 629 P.2d 357, 363 (on a timely appeal from a court's order disposing of a 12 2017Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cantrell , 1987 OK 17, n. 2, 734 P.2d 1292, 1294 (Opala, J., joined by Hargrave, V.C.J., Hodges and Simms, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part, citations including Black's Law Dictionary and explaining the relation-back doctrine is "a principle that an act done today is considered to have been done at an earlier time." Black's Law Dictionary , 1158 (5th ed.1979)). 15 See , e.g. , Salyer v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. , 1986 OK 70, 727 P.2d 1361, 1363 citing Yery v. Yery , 1981 OK 46, 629 P.2d 357, 363 (on a timely appeal from a court's order disposing of a 12 | 2 | 2 |
Yery v. Yerygreen2 sentences2017Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cantrell , 1987 OK 17, n. 2, 734 P.2d 1292, 1294 (Opala, J., joined by Hargrave, V.C.J., Hodges and Simms, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part, citations including Black's Law Dictionary and explaining the relation-back doctrine is "a principle that an act done today is considered to have been done at an earlier time." Black's Law Dictionary , 1158 (5th ed.1979)). 15 See , e.g. , Salyer v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. , 1986 OK 70, 727 P.2d 1361, 1363 citing Yery v. Yery , 1981 OK 46, 629 P.2d 357, 363 (on a timely appeal from a court's order disposing of a 12 2017Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cantrell , 1987 OK 17, n. 2, 734 P.2d 1292, 1294 (Opala, J., joined by Hargrave, V.C.J., Hodges and Simms, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part, citations including Black's Law Dictionary and explaining the relation-back doctrine is "a principle that an act done today is considered to have been done at an earlier time." Black's Law Dictionary , 1158 (5th ed.1979)). 15 See , e.g. , Salyer v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. , 1986 OK 70, 727 P.2d 1361, 1363 citing Yery v. Yery , 1981 OK 46, 629 P.2d 357, 363 (on a timely appeal from a court's order disposing of a 12 | 2 | 2 |
Salyer v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc.green2 sentences2017Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cantrell , 1987 OK 17, n. 2, 734 P.2d 1292, 1294 (Opala, J., joined by Hargrave, V.C.J., Hodges and Simms, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part, citations including Black's Law Dictionary and explaining the relation-back doctrine is "a principle that an act done today is considered to have been done at an earlier time." Black's Law Dictionary , 1158 (5th ed.1979)). 15 See , e.g. , Salyer v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. , 1986 OK 70, 727 P.2d 1361, 1363 citing Yery v. Yery , 1981 OK 46, 629 P.2d 357, 363 (on a timely appeal from a court's order disposing of a 12 2017Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cantrell , 1987 OK 17, n. 2, 734 P.2d 1292, 1294 (Opala, J., joined by Hargrave, V.C.J., Hodges and Simms, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part, citations including Black's Law Dictionary and explaining the relation-back doctrine is "a principle that an act done today is considered to have been done at an earlier time." Black's Law Dictionary , 1158 (5th ed.1979)). 15 See , e.g. , Salyer v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. , 1986 OK 70, 727 P.2d 1361, 1363 citing Yery v. Yery , 1981 OK 46, 629 P.2d 357, 363 (on a timely appeal from a court's order disposing of a 12 | 1 | 2 |
Blackard v. FAIRVIEW FARMS LAND CO., LTD.green1 sentence2013In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552, 567, n. 27 (Tex.2012) (an affirmative defense may not be raised for the first time on appeal); Blackard v. Fairview Farms Land Co., Ltd., 346 S.W.3d 861, 870 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.) (To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party generally must present it to the trial court by timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds, and obtain a ruling.). . | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of E.R.green1 sentence2013In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552, 567, n. 27 (Tex.2012) (an affirmative defense may not be raised for the first time on appeal); Blackard v. Fairview Farms Land Co., Ltd., 346 S.W.3d 861, 870 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.) (To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party generally must present it to the trial court by timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds, and obtain a ruling.). . | 1 | 1 |
Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Waste Management Holdings, Inc.green1 sentence2013Holdings, Inc., 219 S.W.3d 563, 587 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pet. denied.) (Court applied language that is quoted in Brewster in the context of explaining the relation-back doctrine and a statute of limitations for new, distinct, or different transactions or occurrences.). . | 1 | 1 |
cluster 653004green1 sentence1995However, the relation-back doctrine is inapplicable to a newly added defendant unless the defendant “should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it.” Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. ASARCO, Inc., 5 F.3d 431, 434 (9th Cir.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.green2 sentences1992Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 684 , 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2092 , 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974); Hughes & O'Connell, In Personam (Criminal) Forfeiture and Federal Drug Felonies: an Expansion of a Harsh English Tradition into Modern Dilemma, 11 Pepperdine L.Rev. 613, 617-618 (1984); Note, Tempering the relation-back doctrine: a more reasonable approach to civil forfeiture in drug cases, 76 Va. L.Rev. 165, 165-166 n. 3 (1990); Comment, Criminal Forfeiture: Attacking the Economic Dimension of Organized Narcotics Trafficking, 32 Am.U.L.Rev. 227, 229 (1982). 1992Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 684 , 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2092 , 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974); Hughes & O'Connell, In Personam (Criminal) Forfeiture and Federal Drug Felonies: an Expansion of a Harsh English Tradition into Modern Dilemma, 11 Pepperdine L.Rev. 613, 617-618 (1984); Note, Tempering the relation-back doctrine: a more reasonable approach to civil forfeiture in drug cases, 76 Va. L.Rev. 165, 165-166 n. 3 (1990); Comment, Criminal Forfeiture: Attacking the Economic Dimension of Organized Narcotics Trafficking, 32 Am.U.L.Rev. 227, 229 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Fraley, Adm'r v. Wilkinsongreen2 sentences1992See also Fraley v. Wilkinson, 79 Okla. 21 , 191 P. 156, 157 (1920). [7] See footnote 3 supra, and accompanying text. [8] Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 684 , 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2092 , 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974); Hughes & O'Connell, In Personam (Criminal) Forfeiture and Federal Drug Felonies: an Expansion of a Harsh English Tradition into Modern Dilemma, 11 Pepperdine L.Rev. 613, 617-618 (1984); Note, Tempering the relation-back doctrine: a more reasonable approach to civil forfeiture in drug cases, 76 Va. L.Rev. 165, 165-166 n. 3 (1990); Comment, Criminal Forfeiture: Attackin 1992See also Fraley v. Wilkinson, 79 Okla. 21 , 191 P. 156, 157 (1920). [7] See footnote 3 supra, and accompanying text. [8] Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 684 , 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2092 , 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974); Hughes & O'Connell, In Personam (Criminal) Forfeiture and Federal Drug Felonies: an Expansion of a Harsh English Tradition into Modern Dilemma, 11 Pepperdine L.Rev. 613, 617-618 (1984); Note, Tempering the relation-back doctrine: a more reasonable approach to civil forfeiture in drug cases, 76 Va. L.Rev. 165, 165-166 n. 3 (1990); Comment, Criminal Forfeiture: Attackin | 1 | 1 |
State v. Corner Stone Bankgreen1 sentence1991However, we do recognize that in Matter of the Forfeiture of a 1977 Chevrolet Pickup, 734 P.2d 857, 859 (Okla.Ct.App.1987), the Court of Appeals refused to adopt the expansive relation-back rule of Stowell . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Thirteen Thousand Dollars in United States Currencygreen1 sentence1991United States v. Thirteen Thousand Dollars, 733 F.2d 581, 584 (8th Cir.1984); United States v. $319,820.00, 634 F.Supp. 700, 703 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. $319,820.00 in United States Currencygreen1 sentence1991United States v. Thirteen Thousand Dollars, 733 F.2d 581, 584 (8th Cir.1984); United States v. $319,820.00, 634 F.Supp. 700, 703 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
Dewailly v. First National Bank of Coffeyvillegreen1 sentence1987See 12 O.S. 1981 § 317 and Dewailly v. First National Bank of Coffeyville, Okl., 338 P.2d 1110, 1113 [1959]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S. P. A
green
2 sentences2011I1 should be noted that the Court of Civil Appeals' analysis of the relation back doctrine predates the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in Krupski v. Costa Crociere, -- U.S. --, 130 S.Ct 2485 , 177 L.Ed.2d 48 (2010), discussed below. 12 . 2011I1 should be noted that the Court of Civil Appeals' analysis of the relation back doctrine predates the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in Krupski v. Costa Crociere, -- U.S. --, 130 S.Ct 2485 , 177 L.Ed.2d 48 (2010), discussed below. 12 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Susan Roberts v. Ron Michaels, D/B/A Mid-South Vending
green
1 sentence2010Roberts v. Michaels, 219 F.3d 775 (8th Cir.2000). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Shell Petroleum Corp. v. White
green
2 sentences2010Because the August 9, 2006 order did not confer new benefits but rather directed payments for benefits previously ordered, after they were incurred, it was not a "last order" under § 43(C). [5] We agree with Ward that there is authority for the relation back doctrine to apply in workers' compensation cases, see Shell Petroleum Corp. v. White, 1936 OK 93 , 56 P.2d 830 , 176 Okla. 573 . 2010Because the August 9, 2006 order did not confer new benefits but rather directed payments for benefits previously ordered, after they were incurred, it was not a "last order" under § 43(C). [5] We agree with Ward that there is authority for the relation back doctrine to apply in workers' compensation cases, see Shell Petroleum Corp. v. White, 1936 OK 93 , 56 P.2d 830 , 176 Okla. 573 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Parker v. Elam
green
1 sentence1998The relevant section of that code, 12 O.S.1991 § 2015(C)(2), provides: An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: (2) The claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading; ... ¶ 24 In Parker v. Elam, 1992 OK 32 , 829 P.2d 677 , the Supreme Court discussed the transactional approach of applying the relation back doctrine, as that method is set out in § 2015(C)(2). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cantrell v. State
green
1 sentence1987NOTES [1] See Cantrell v. State, Okl.Cr., 697 P.2d 968 [1985]. [2] The relation-back doctrine is explained as "[a] principle that an act done today is considered to have been done at an earlier time." Black's Law Dictionary 1158, 5th ed. [1979]. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hockman v. Hockman
neutral
2 sentences1987See Murfree v. Carmack and Williams, 12 Tenn. (4 Yerg) 1270 [1833]; Hockman v. Hockman, 93 Va. 455 , 25 S.E. 534 [1896]; Withers v. Carter, 45 Va. (4 Grat) 407 [1848] and First Nat. 1987See Murfree v. Carmack and Williams, 12 Tenn. (4 Yerg) 1270 [1833]; Hockman v. Hockman, 93 Va. 455 , 25 S.E. 534 [1896]; Withers v. Carter, 45 Va. (4 Grat) 407 [1848] and First Nat. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Rice v. Federal Life Ins. Co.
neutral
2 sentences1964Co., 172 Okl. 358 , 45 P.2d 49 , where we said the doctrine of relation back (estoppel by deed) is never used except for the promotion of justice or the prevention of an injustice. 1964Co., 172 Okl. 358 , 45 P.2d 49 , where we said the doctrine of relation back (estoppel by deed) is never used except for the promotion of justice or the prevention of an injustice. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.