view error in Oklahoma

2021That's up to you." The Oklahoma Supreme Court has stated that "it cannot be presumed as a matter of law that the jury will fail to heed the admonition given by the court." Covel v. Rodriguez , 2012 OK 5 272 P.3d 705 See also A. & A. Cab Operating Co. v. Mooneyham , 1943 OK 363 142 P.2d 974 ¶5 It is easy to imagine numerous scenarios that disprove the Majority's view that the error in question is always highly prejudicial -- and the present case stands as one of them.

2021That's up to you." The Oklahoma Supreme Court has stated that "it cannot be presumed as a matter of law that the jury will fail to heed the admonition given by the court." Covel v. Rodriguez , 2012 OK 5 272 P.3d 705 See also A. & A. Cab Operating Co. v. Mooneyham , 1943 OK 363 142 P.2d 974 ¶5 It is easy to imagine numerous scenarios that disprove the Majority's view that the error in question is always highly prejudicial -- and the present case stands as one of them.

2021That's up to you." The Oklahoma Supreme Court has stated that "it cannot be presumed as a matter of law that the jury will fail to heed the admonition given by the court." Covel v. Rodriguez , 2012 OK 5 272 P.3d 705 See also A. & A. Cab Operating Co. v. Mooneyham , 1943 OK 363 142 P.2d 974 ¶5 It is easy to imagine numerous scenarios that disprove the Majority's view that the error in question is always highly prejudicial -- and the present case stands as one of them.

2021That's up to you." The Oklahoma Supreme Court has stated that "it cannot be presumed as a matter of law that the jury will fail to heed the admonition given by the court." Covel v. Rodriguez , 2012 OK 5 272 P.3d 705 See also A. & A. Cab Operating Co. v. Mooneyham , 1943 OK 363 142 P.2d 974 ¶5 It is easy to imagine numerous scenarios that disprove the Majority's view that the error in question is always highly prejudicial -- and the present case stands as one of them.

2010See, eg., U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256 (Utah 1993) (for the view that the standard of review is procedural). .

1987They reasoned that the instruction “in effect told the jury not to give any weight to the bulk of the evidence proffered by the defendant.” Easley, 196 Cal.Rptr. at 323 , 671 P.2d at 827 .

1987They reasoned that the instruction “in effect told the jury not to give any weight to the bulk of the evidence proffered by the defendant.” Easley, 196 Cal.Rptr. at 323 , 671 P.2d at 827 .

1984In Johnson v. State, 620 P.2d 1311 (Okl.Cr.1980), we adopted the view that defense counsel must exercise the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense counsel.

1984In Johnson v. State, 620 P.2d 1311 (Okl.Cr. 1980), we adopted the view that defense counsel must exercise the skill, judgment and diligence of a reasonably competent defense counsel.

1958In this connection, see, also, Norris v. Bristow, 358 Mo. 1177 , 319 S.W.2d 367 , 11 A.L.R.2d 725 and the annotations at 154 A.L.R. 583 and 66 A.L.R. 228 .

1958In this connection, see, also, Norris v. Bristow, 358 Mo. 1177 , 319 S.W.2d 367 , 11 A.L.R.2d 725 and the annotations at 154 A.L.R. 583 and 66 A.L.R. 228 .

1958In this connection, see, also, Norris v. Bristow, 358 Mo. 1177 , 319 S.W.2d 367 , 11 A.L.R.2d 725 and the annotations at 154 A.L.R. 583 and 66 A.L.R. 228 .

1958“Most of the authorities, however, support the view that a presumption of undue influence arises upon a showing that one who- drew the will, or was otherwise active directly in preparing it or procuring its execution, obtains under the will a substantial benefit, to which he has no natural claim or a benefit which, in amount, is out of proportion to the amounts received by other persons having an equal claim to participate in the bounty of the testator.” Ibid.

1954We are of the view that the instruction in all essential respects is comparable to an instruction in Belford v. Allen, Adm’r, 183 Okl. 256 , 80 P.2d 671, 675 .

1954We are of the view that the instruction in all essential respects is comparable to an instruction in Belford v. Allen, Adm’r, 183 Okl. 256 , 80 P.2d 671, 675 .

1951In National Tank Co. v. Scott, 191 Okla. 613 , 130 P.2d 316 , it is said in the body of the opinion: “And we say that the ‘facts and issues’ as here used mean only those issues pertaining to the establishment of the cause of action or defense.

1951In National Tank Co. v. Scott, 191 Okla. 613 , 130 P.2d 316 , it is said in the body of the opinion: “And we say that the ‘facts and issues’ as here used mean only those issues pertaining to the establishment of the cause of action or defense.

1945Wilcox v. Wilcox, 180 Okla. 228 , 68 P. 2d 494 .

1945Wilcox v. Wilcox, 180 Okla. 228 , 68 P. 2d 494 .

1944Defendant complains of the refusal of the trial court to give its requested instruction No. 16, which reads: “You are instructed that it is the duty of a person about to cross a railroad track to make vigilant use of his senses in order to ascertain if there is a train approaching, and it was the duty of the driver of the automobile on approaching the track to look and listen for approaching trains before attempting to cross said track, and it was his duty to *593 keep his faculties in active exercise, and not permit his attention to be diverted from the danger before him, and this duty rested

1944Defendant complains of the refusal of the trial court to give its requested instruction No. 16, which reads: “You are instructed that it is the duty of a person about to cross a railroad track to make vigilant use of his senses in order to ascertain if there is a train approaching, and it was the duty of the driver of the automobile on approaching the track to look and listen for approaching trains before attempting to cross said track, and it was his duty to *593 keep his faculties in active exercise, and not permit his attention to be diverted from the danger before him, and this duty rested

1941App.) 155 S. W. 573 , the court in discussing this very point said: “ Where property has been sold at execution sale at a very inadequate price, a court of equity will set the sale aside where the defendant makes a prompt offer to pay the indebtedness, costs, and interest. . . . “ ‘Certainly, when there is an enormous inadequacy of price at a sheriff’s sale, if there are but slight irregularities or other circumstances attending calculated to prevent the property from bringing something like its reasonable value, it is regarded as unconscientious in the purchaser to hold the property so purcha

1940In the case of Hodge v. Mayfield, 98 Okla. 8 , 223 P. 853 , we announced the following rule: *596 “In an action in the county court for rent for the use and occupancy of plaintiff’s premises, where the petition clearly states a cause of action, and the defendant answers denying ownership, and alleging ownership in another, the court will not be ousted of jurisdiction on the ground that title to real estate is involved, where there is no substantial evidence in the record showing any conflict in the title.” We are of the view that this rule is controlling here.

1940In the case of Hodge v. Mayfield, 98 Okla. 8 , 223 P. 853 , we announced the following rule: *596 “In an action in the county court for rent for the use and occupancy of plaintiff’s premises, where the petition clearly states a cause of action, and the defendant answers denying ownership, and alleging ownership in another, the court will not be ousted of jurisdiction on the ground that title to real estate is involved, where there is no substantial evidence in the record showing any conflict in the title.” We are of the view that this rule is controlling here.

1928Objection at trial was made to the entire deposition, which was in accord with the stipulation contained in the same, which inclines us to the view that the rule expressed in Bagg v. Schoenfelt, 71 Okla. 195 , 176 Pac. 511 , and in section 629, C.

1928Objection at trial was made to the entire deposition, which was in accord with the stipulation contained in the same, which inclines us to the view that the rule expressed in Bagg v. Schoenfelt, 71 Okla. 195 , 176 Pac. 511 , and in section 629, C.

1895Co. v. Retford, 18 Kan. 245 .) *249 Inasmuch as the courts of Indiana have not passed upon the question here presented, we will adopt the view that an exception was properly saved and will consider the same.