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 1914–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See Davis v. State, 753 P.2d 388, 392 (Okl.Cr.1988) (a timely objection brings the alleged error to the attention of the trial court and provides an opportunity to correct the error at trial.) As for potential juror Ms. Mess, Appellant initially passed her for cause also, but joined in the co-defendant’s subsequent challenge for cause. 1994See Davis v. State, 753 P.2d 388, 392 (Okl.Cr. 1988) (a timely objection brings the alleged error to the attention of the trial court and provides an opportunity to correct the error at trial.) As for potential juror Ms. Mess, Appellant initially passed her for cause also, but joined in the co-defendant's subsequent challenge for cause. | 4 | 4 |
Beshears v. Stategreen2 sentences1988Beshears v. State, 738 P.2d 1375, 1378 (Okl.Cr.1987). 1988Beshears v. State, 738 P.2d 1375, 1378 (Okla.Crim.App.1987). | 3 | 3 |
Cantrell v. Henthorngreen2 sentences2019See Cantrell v. Henthorn , 1981 OK 15 , ¶ 4, 624 P.2d 1056 . 2019See Cantrell v. Henthorn , 1981 OK 15 , ¶ 4, 624 P.2d 1056 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goddard v. Kirkpatrick
green
2 sentences1944We think this question is controlled by our recent decision in Goddard v. Kirkpatrick, 193 Okla. 92 , 141 P. 2d 292 . 1944We think this question is controlled by our recent decision in Goddard v. Kirkpatrick, 193 Okla. 92 , 141 P. 2d 292 . | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Summers v. State
neutral
1 sentence1934Summers v. State, 7 Okla. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Boutcher v. State
green
1 sentence1928Boutcher v. State, 4 Okla. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Ledgerwood v. State
neutral
1 sentence1926But the record shows that counsel for appellants did not complain to the trial court or preserve this ■question in the record for presentation to this court. * * *” In the case of Ledgerwood v. State, 6 Okla. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Dooling v. State
neutral
1 sentence1916Cr. 281 , 105 Pac. 386 , 106 Pac. 982 . | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Hess v. State
neutral
1 sentence1916Cr. 516 , loc. cit. 520 (132 Pac. 505 ), this court, speaking through Judge Furman, said: “ Tt has been repeatedly held that where counsel desire to reserve an exception to an instruction they must point out the particular paragraph of the instructions objected to and state the-grounds of the objection, so that the trial court may have an opportunity to correct the error complained of. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Rea v. State
green
2 sentences1916Cr. 281 , 105 Pac. 386 , 106 Pac. 982 . 1916Counsel should point out to the trial court the particular instruction to which they desire to except, in order that the court may have an opportunity to correct the error therein, if any.” There'being no proper exceptions taken to the. charge of the court to the jury, the only review of instructions given that we can make is to see that the instructions are not only erroneous, but fundamentally wrong. *477 “ ‘Fundamental errors,’ which will be considered whether assigned or not, are those which go to the foundation of the case, or which take from the defendant a right which was essential to h | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. Welborn
neutral
2 sentences1914In Stinchcomb et al. v. Myers, 28 Okla. 597 , 115 Pac. 602 , this court announced the rule as follows: “Errors occurring during the trial cannot be considered by the Supreme Court, unless a motion for a new trial, founded upon and including such errors, has been made by the complaining party and acted upon by the trial court, and its ruling excepted to, and afterwards assigned for error in the Supreme Court.” In the case of Farmers & Merchants’ Bank v. Welborn et al., 32 Okla. 1 , 121 Pac. 620 , the court said: “The only question involved in this case is whether the loss by the stenographer of 1914In Stinchcomb et al. v. Myers, 28 Okla. 597 , 115 Pac. 602 , this court announced the rule as follows: “Errors occurring during the trial cannot be considered by the Supreme Court, unless a motion for a new trial, founded upon and including such errors, has been made by the complaining party and acted upon by the trial court, and its ruling excepted to, and afterwards assigned for error in the Supreme Court.” In the case of Farmers & Merchants’ Bank v. Welborn et al., 32 Okla. 1 , 121 Pac. 620 , the court said: “The only question involved in this case is whether the loss by the stenographer of | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Stinchcomb v. Myers
neutral
2 sentences1914In Stinchcomb et al. v. Myers, 28 Okla. 597 , 115 Pac. 602 , this court announced the rule as follows: “Errors occurring during the trial cannot be considered by the Supreme Court, unless a motion for a new trial, founded upon and including such errors, has been made by the complaining party and acted upon by the trial court, and its ruling excepted to, and afterwards assigned for error in the Supreme Court.” In the case of Farmers & Merchants’ Bank v. Welborn et al., 32 Okla. 1 , 121 Pac. 620 , the court said: “The only question involved in this case is whether the loss by the stenographer of 1914In Stinchcomb et al. v. Myers, 28 Okla. 597 , 115 Pac. 602 , this court announced the rule as follows: “Errors occurring during the trial cannot be considered by the Supreme Court, unless a motion for a new trial, founded upon and including such errors, has been made by the complaining party and acted upon by the trial court, and its ruling excepted to, and afterwards assigned for error in the Supreme Court.” In the case of Farmers & Merchants’ Bank v. Welborn et al., 32 Okla. 1 , 121 Pac. 620 , the court said: “The only question involved in this case is whether the loss by the stenographer of | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.