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.
15 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wholesale Petroleum Company v. Chartingreen2 sentences2008The summary judgment record in this case demonstrates that questions of fact exist regarding the notice to the Harrisons. 4 The "inquiry here is not substantial compliance with statutory procedures, but rather, whether the notice satisfies the elementary and fundamental requirement of due process." Wholesale Petroleum Co. v. Chartin, 1998 OK CIV APP 183, ¶ 9 , 972 P.2d 1184, 1186 (citing Luster v. Bank of Chelsea, 1986 OK 74, ¶ 14 , 730 P.2d 506, 508-09 ). 2008The summary judgment record in this case demonstrates that questions of fact exist regarding the notice to the Harrisons. 4 The "inquiry here is not substantial compliance with statutory procedures, but rather, whether the notice satisfies the elementary and fundamental requirement of due process." Wholesale Petroleum Co. v. Chartin, 1998 OK CIV APP 183, ¶ 9 , 972 P.2d 1184, 1186 (citing Luster v. Bank of Chelsea, 1986 OK 74, ¶ 14 , 730 P.2d 506, 508-09 ). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Independent School District No. 16green2 sentences2006No. 16 of Payne Co., 1982 OK 74, ¶ 11, 648 , 648 P.2d 26 [The purpose of any due process proceeding is to afford the opportunity to each person to present evidence and arguments in a forum which provides fair and equal justice.]; Malone v. Malone, 1979 OK 21, ¶ 4 , 591 P.2d 296 [Due process requires an orderly proceeding adapted to the case in which the parties have an opportunity to be heard, and to defend, enforce and protect their rights.]. [9] Wood v. Independent School Dist. 2006No. 16 of Payne Co., 1982 OK 74, ¶ 11, 648 , 648 P.2d 26 [The purpose of any due process proceeding is to afford the opportunity to each person to present evidence and arguments in a forum which provides fair and equal justice.]; Malone v. Malone, 1979 OK 21, ¶ 4 , 591 P.2d 296 [Due process requires an orderly proceeding adapted to the case in which the parties have an opportunity to be heard, and to defend, enforce and protect their rights.]. [9] Wood v. Independent School Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Messenger v. Messengergreen2 sentences2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. 2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. | 1 | 1 |
Swanson v. Gickgreen1 sentence1995We hold under the facts of this ease, that although Rule 10 did not require notice to Bank before default judgment was rendered, due process did. 5 The OMahoma Supreme Court quoted Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), in Swanson v. Gick, 805 P.2d 662, 664 (Okla.1991): An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice *343 reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to pre | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2011Laws, ch. 58, §§ 2, 3, 48. [8] Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 657 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (citations omitted): An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. 2011Laws, ch. 58, §§ 2, 3, 48. [8] Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 657 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (citations omitted): An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. | 11 | 1975–2011 |
Luster v. Bank of Chelsea
green
2 sentences2008The summary judgment record in this case demonstrates that questions of fact exist regarding the notice to the Harrisons. 4 The "inquiry here is not substantial compliance with statutory procedures, but rather, whether the notice satisfies the elementary and fundamental requirement of due process." Wholesale Petroleum Co. v. Chartin, 1998 OK CIV APP 183, ¶ 9 , 972 P.2d 1184, 1186 (citing Luster v. Bank of Chelsea, 1986 OK 74, ¶ 14 , 730 P.2d 506, 508-09 ). 2008The summary judgment record in this case demonstrates that questions of fact exist regarding the notice to the Harrisons. 4 The "inquiry here is not substantial compliance with statutory procedures, but rather, whether the notice satisfies the elementary and fundamental requirement of due process." Wholesale Petroleum Co. v. Chartin, 1998 OK CIV APP 183, ¶ 9 , 972 P.2d 1184, 1186 (citing Luster v. Bank of Chelsea, 1986 OK 74, ¶ 14 , 730 P.2d 506, 508-09 ). | 2 | 1998–2008 |
Armstrong v. Manzo
green
2 sentences2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. 2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. | 2 | 1999–2006 |
Grannis v. Ordean
green
2 sentences2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. 2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Milliken v. Meyer
green
2 sentences2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. 2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Malone v. Malone
green
2 sentences2006No. 16 of Payne Co., 1982 OK 74, ¶ 11, 648 , 648 P.2d 26 [The purpose of any due process proceeding is to afford the opportunity to each person to present evidence and arguments in a forum which provides fair and equal justice.]; Malone v. Malone, 1979 OK 21, ¶ 4 , 591 P.2d 296 [Due process requires an orderly proceeding adapted to the case in which the parties have an opportunity to be heard, and to defend, enforce and protect their rights.]. [9] Wood v. Independent School Dist. 2006No. 16 of Payne Co., 1982 OK 74, ¶ 11, 648 , 648 P.2d 26 [The purpose of any due process proceeding is to afford the opportunity to each person to present evidence and arguments in a forum which provides fair and equal justice.]; Malone v. Malone, 1979 OK 21, ¶ 4 , 591 P.2d 296 [Due process requires an orderly proceeding adapted to the case in which the parties have an opportunity to be heard, and to defend, enforce and protect their rights.]. [9] Wood v. Independent School Dist. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Boddie v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. 2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Phillips v. Williams
green
2 sentences2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. 2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Shabazz v. Williams
green
1 sentence2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Harryman v. Estelle
green
2 sentences2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. 2006See also, Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, ¶ 17 , 827 P.2d 865 [Art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution bars the government's deprivation of property without due process of law.]; Phillips v. Williams, 1980 OK 25, ¶ 4 , 608 P.2d 1131 , cert. denied Shabazz v. Williams, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 162 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980) [Due Process may be invoked whenever government action deprives a person of some legitimate "liberty" or "property" interest within the meaning of the United States Constitution.]. [7] Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Marshall Oil Corp. v. Adams
green
1 sentence1999As quoted in the case Marshall Oil Corporation v. Adams, 688 P.2d 37 (Okla. 1983): The United States Supreme Court in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 314-315 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 657 , 94 L.Ed. 865 , (1949), determined that "interested parties" should be provided the full opportunity to appear and be heard: An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to p | 1 | 1999–1999 |
King v. Slepka
green
2 sentences1998While there is some authority to that effect, e.g., King v. Slepka, 194 Okla. 11 , 146 P.2d 1002 (1944), the focus of our inquiry here is not substantial compliance with statutory procedures, but rather, whether the notice satisfies the elementary and fundamental requirement of due process. 1998While there is some authority to that effect, e.g., King v. Slepka, 194 Okla. 11 , 146 P.2d 1002 (1944), the focus of our inquiry here is not substantial compliance with statutory procedures, but rather, whether the notice satisfies the elementary and fundamental requirement of due process. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co.
green
1 sentence1975As the Supreme Court of the United States stated in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 , at page 314, 70 S.Ct. at 657 : “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to he accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all of the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” (Emphasis added.) The Oklahoma Supreme Court has observed that “Oklahoma has long recognized the Mullane doctrine.” Bomford v. Socon | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.