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.
12 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershedgreen2 sentences2025Id . at ¶35, 264 P.3d at 1211. 2025Id . at ¶35, 264 P.3d at 1211. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. O'Nealgreen2 sentences2023Bar Ass'n v. O'Neal , 1993 OK 61 , 852 P.2d 713, 716 (This Court will not review facts raised by a respondent for the first time in a brief filed after the respondent's trial panel hearing.). 17 State ex rel. 2023Bar Ass'n v. O'Neal , 1993 OK 61 , 852 P.2d 713, 716 (This Court will not review facts raised by a respondent for the first time in a brief filed after the respondent's trial panel hearing.). 17 State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
STATE EX REL. OKLA. BAR ASS'N v. Gassawaygreen2 sentences2019These distinctions, however, do not overcome the abundance of Respondent's additional misconduct -- filing fraudulent pleadings, altering court documents, and directly misrepresenting facts to district courts. 34 See, e.g., Gassaway , 2008 OK 60 , ¶¶ 86-87, 196 P.3d at 511 (where we reduced costs after attorney prevailed on nine out of fifteen counts, but we also considered attorney's actions in increasing costs and disproportionate evidence in certain counts); State ex rel. 2019These distinctions, however, do not overcome the abundance of Respondent's additional misconduct -- filing fraudulent pleadings, altering court documents, and directly misrepresenting facts to district courts. 34 See, e.g., Gassaway , 2008 OK 60 , ¶¶ 86-87, 196 P.3d at 511 (where we reduced costs after attorney prevailed on nine out of fifteen counts, but we also considered attorney's actions in increasing costs and disproportionate evidence in certain counts); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n. v. Johnstongreen2 sentences2015Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Johnston , 1993 OK 91, 863 P.2d 1136, 1139, 1141, 1143 (In a professional disciplinary proceeding, a lawyer's stipulation or admission in the form of an agreed conclusion of law that his professional conduct violated Rule 8.4(c) of the ORPC did not prevent the Court from determining that the record failed to show the lawyer's motive [bad or evil intent] that was necessary for holding that the lawyer violated Rule 8.4). 22 We need not analyze specific public interests that may arise when the Bar seeks an admission from a lawyer in the context of a trial panel proceeding or 2015Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Johnston , 1993 OK 91, 863 P.2d 1136, 1139, 1141, 1143 (In a professional disciplinary proceeding, a lawyer's stipulation or admission in the form of an agreed conclusion of law that his professional conduct violated Rule 8.4(c) of the ORPC did not prevent the Court from determining that the record failed to show the lawyer's motive [bad or evil intent] that was necessary for holding that the lawyer violated Rule 8.4). 22 We need not analyze specific public interests that may arise when the Bar seeks an admission from a lawyer in the context of a trial panel proceeding or | 1 | 1 |
Amazon Fire Ins. Co. v. Bondgreen2 sentences2015Co. v. Bond , 1917 OK 96, 165 P. 414, 418, quoting Ballard v. Nye , 138 Cal. 596, 72 Pac. 159, (1903) (discussing the concept of facts putting a principal upon inquiry). 33 We note that at one point in the proceeding Knight was expressly questioned by a member of the trial panel whether his claim of a lacking intention to violate an ethical rule was a defense by him to the Bar's claim he violated an ethical rule or if it was merely put forward by him for the purpose of mitigating discipline. 2015Co. v. Bond , 1917 OK 96, 165 P. 414, 418, quoting Ballard v. Nye , 138 Cal. 596, 72 Pac. 159, (1903) (discussing the concept of facts putting a principal upon inquiry). 33 We note that at one point in the proceeding Knight was expressly questioned by a member of the trial panel whether his claim of a lacking intention to violate an ethical rule was a defense by him to the Bar's claim he violated an ethical rule or if it was merely put forward by him for the purpose of mitigating discipline. | 1 | 1 |
Oklahoma Association of Insurance Agents v. Hudsongreen2 sentences1993Oklahoma Association of Insurance *1194 Agents v. Hudson, 385 P.2d 453, 455, 456 (Okla. 1963). 1993Oklahoma Association of Insurance Agents v. Hudson, 385 P.2d 453, 455, 456 (Okla.1963). | 1 | 1 |
Morrison v. Atkinsongreen1 sentence1929In the case of Grisson v. State, 16 Okla. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
STATE EX REL. OBA v. Benefield
green
2 sentences2012Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Benefield, 2005 OK 75 , 125 P.3d 1191 the cause took nearly two years from the time a formal complaint was filed until the trial panel held a hearing and issued its report. 2012Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Benefield, 2005 OK 75 , 125 P.3d 1191 the cause took nearly two years from the time a formal complaint was filed until the trial panel held a hearing and issued its report. | 2 | 2006–2012 |
In Re Amendment to the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings Rule 7, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App.1
green
2 sentences2005Rule 6.6, of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2001 Ch. 1, App. 1-A requires the selection of a trial panel within ten days after receiving notice of the complaint. 4 Rule 6.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001 Ch. 1, App. 1-A requires that a hearing shall not be less than thirty to sixty days from the date of the appointment of the trial panel, unless good cause is shown. 5 ¶ 4 There is nothing before the Court which explains the excessive delay in holding the hearing. 2005Rule 6.6, of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2001 Ch. 1, App. 1-A requires the selection of a trial panel within ten days after receiving notice of the complaint. [4] Rule 6.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001 Ch. 1, App. 1-A requires that a hearing shall not be less than thirty to sixty days from the date of the appointment of the trial panel, unless good cause is shown. [5] ¶ 4 There is nothing before the Court which explains the excessive delay in holding the hearing. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Sierra Berdecía v. Cuevas Martínez
neutral
2 sentences2015Co. v. Bond , 1917 OK 96, 165 P. 414, 418, quoting Ballard v. Nye , 138 Cal. 596, 72 Pac. 159, (1903) (discussing the concept of facts putting a principal upon inquiry). 33 We note that at one point in the proceeding Knight was expressly questioned by a member of the trial panel whether his claim of a lacking intention to violate an ethical rule was a defense by him to the Bar's claim he violated an ethical rule or if it was merely put forward by him for the purpose of mitigating discipline. 2015Co. v. Bond , 1917 OK 96 , 165 P. 414, 418 , quoting Ballard v. Nye , 138 Cal. 596 , 72 Pac. 159 , (1903) (discussing the concept of facts putting a principal upon inquiry). 33 We note that at one point in the proceeding Knight was expressly questioned by a member of the trial panel whether his claim of a lacking intention to violate an ethical rule was a defense by him to the Bar's claim he violated an ethical rule or if it was merely put forward by him for the purpose of mitigating discipline. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Brown
green
2 sentences2001Oklahoma Bar Association v. Brown, 1998 OK 123, ¶ 16 , 990 P.2d 840, 844 , where we said that we did not want to encourage allegations of misconduct being first raised at the trial panel hearing when they could have been pled in the initial complaint. ¶ 9 The parties stipulated that respondent's conduct violated Rule 8.4, and the Complaint alleges a violation of Rule 8.4(c). [4] It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving misrepresentation. 2001Oklahoma Bar Association v. Brown, 1998 OK 123, ¶ 16 , 990 P.2d 840, 844 , where we said that we did not want to encourage allegations of misconduct being first raised at the trial panel hearing when they could have been pled in the initial complaint. ¶ 9 The parties stipulated that respondent's conduct violated Rule 8.4, and the Complaint alleges a violation of Rule 8.4(c). [4] It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving misrepresentation. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence1992Oklahoma Bar Association v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815 (Okla.1990) we examined the subject of suspension under Rule 7, and remanded the matter to the Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Commission for eliciting evidence on the issue of the Respondent’s unfitness to practice of law. 1 The Trial Panel held a hearing, filed a report, the parties briefed the issues, and the matter is now before us for de novo review. 2 The Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding on the basis that his conviction does not demonstrate his unfitness to practice law. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.