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.
11 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1912–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Sand Springs v. Department of Public Welfaregreen2 sentences2011See also City of Sand Springs v. Department of Public Welfare, 1980 OK 36 , 608 P.2d 1139 (when applying a different exeeption of the APA's definition of "rule," the Court held not every decision by an agency must be in the form of a rule). 116 Interpreting together the APA and the Group Insurance Act, we conclude the unambiguous language of § 1821(C) clearly expresses the Legislature's intent to continue its exclusion of an agency's approval or pre-seription of rates from the definition of "rule" and the rule-making process of Article I of the APA while at the same time requiring minimum due 2002DHS states that no rule is needed because its decision to outsource is an internal management decision. ¶ 33 DHS relies upon City of Sand Springs v. Department of Public Welfare, supra , for the proposition that "decisions like the one made in Sand Springs " . . . "need not be made pursuant to the formal rulemaking procedures of the APA." In City of Sand *1086 Springs we relied upon former 75 O.S.1971 § 301 for the proposition that not every decision made by the DHS must be in the form of a rule because a "rule" does not include "statements concerning only the internal management of an agency | 1 | 2 |
| 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. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2007Id. ¶ 13 Young’s conduct rises to the level of misappropriation, the most serious form of violation under Rule 1.15 of the ORPC. 2007Id. ¶ 13 Young's conduct rises to the level of misappropriation, the most serious form of violation under Rule 1.15 of the ORPC. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. R. B. Lacy
green
2 sentences1975In Wright v. State of North Carolina, 483 F.2d 405 (4th Cir.1973), citing with approval United States v. Lacy, 446 F.2d 511 (5th Cir.1971), that court stated: "`We think this warning comports with the requirements of Miranda . 1975In Wright v. State of North Carolina, 483 F.2d 405 (4th Cir. 1973), citing with approval United States v. Lacy, 446 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1971), that court stated: “ ‘We think this warning comports with the requirements of Miranda ,. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Nat Villiam Wright v. State of North Carolina and David Henry, Warden, State's Prison
green
2 sentences1975In Wright v. State of North Carolina, 483 F.2d 405 (4th Cir.1973), citing with approval United States v. Lacy, 446 F.2d 511 (5th Cir.1971), that court stated: "`We think this warning comports with the requirements of Miranda . 1975In Wright v. State of North Carolina, 483 F.2d 405 (4th Cir. 1973), citing with approval United States v. Lacy, 446 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1971), that court stated: “ ‘We think this warning comports with the requirements of Miranda ,. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence1971Williams v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 997 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
First State Bank of Lamont v. Ware
green
1 sentence1954On the contrary, we do not think that it was misleading or confusing to the jury, and in view of the fact that this court had approved the giving of such instructions in numerous cases, and in further view of the fact that there was no defense at all offered * * * it certainly would not constitute reversible error.” In Rainey v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 1 , 107 P.2d 371, 373 , wherein this court held a similar instruction not shifting the burden to the defendant was not bad, and said: “ * * * it clearly submits to the jury for their determination the question of fact as to whether the defendant had t | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Savalier v. State
green
2 sentences1954“In the case of Savalier v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 87 , 185 P.2d 476 , this court suggested a form of instruction which should be given along with the prima facie evidence instruction * * And said: “ ‘ * * * a further instruction in substantially the following language should be given: “The term ‘prima fa-cie evidence’ as that term is used in the statute above mentioned is that degree of proof which unexplained or uncon-tradicted is sufficient, if it be credited by the jury, to establish the unlawful intent, yet it does not make it obligatory upon the jury to convict after the presentation of such 1954“In the case of Savalier v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 87 , 185 P.2d 476 , this court suggested a form of instruction which should be given along with the prima facie evidence instruction * * And said: “ ‘ * * * a further instruction in substantially the following language should be given: “The term ‘prima fa-cie evidence’ as that term is used in the statute above mentioned is that degree of proof which unexplained or uncon-tradicted is sufficient, if it be credited by the jury, to establish the unlawful intent, yet it does not make it obligatory upon the jury to convict after the presentation of such | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Rainey v. State
neutral
1 sentence1954On the contrary, we do not think that it was misleading or confusing to the jury, and in view of the fact that this court had approved the giving of such instructions in numerous cases, and in further view of the fact that there was no defense at all offered * * * it certainly would not constitute reversible error.” In Rainey v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 1 , 107 P.2d 371, 373 , wherein this court held a similar instruction not shifting the burden to the defendant was not bad, and said: “ * * * it clearly submits to the jury for their determination the question of fact as to whether the defendant had t | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Ladd v. State
green
2 sentences1953Cr. 294 , 207 P.2d 350 , the decisions of this court involving the question raised were reviewed at some length and the correct form of instruction covering the point raised was suggested, and should be followed. 1953Cr. 294 , 207 P. 2d 350 , the decisions of this court involving the question raised were reviewed at some length and the correct form of instruction covering the point raised was suggested, and should be followed. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Keir v. Trager
green
2 sentences1947This form of instruction, although in somewhat different words, was approved by the Kansas court in the case of Keir v. Trager et al., 134 Kan. 505 , 7 P. 2d 49 , 81 A.L.R. 181 . 1947This form of instruction, although in somewhat different words, was approved by the Kansas court in the case of Keir v. Trager et al., 134 Kan. 505 , 7 P. 2d 49 , 81 A.L.R. 181 . | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Wass v. Vickery
neutral
2 sentences1938Key v. Hill, 93 Okla. 64 , 219 P. 308 ; Wass v. Vickery, 137 Okla. 52 , 278 P. 336 ; Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Gale, 136 Okla. 233 , 277 P. 242 ; Newman v. Kirk, 164 Okla. 147 , 23 P.2d 163 . 1938Key v. Hill, 93 Okla. 64 , 219 P. 308 ; Wass v. Vickery, 137 Okla. 52 , 278 P. 336 ; Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Gale, 136 Okla. 233 , 277 P. 242 ; Newman v. Kirk, 164 Okla. 147 , 23 P.2d 163 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Newman v. Kirk
green
2 sentences1938Key v. Hill, 93 Okla. 64 , 219 P. 308 ; Wass v. Vickery, 137 Okla. 52 , 278 P. 336 ; Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Gale, 136 Okla. 233 , 277 P. 242 ; Newman v. Kirk, 164 Okla. 147 , 23 P.2d 163 . 1938Key v. Hill, 93 Okla. 64 , 219 P. 308 ; Wass v. Vickery, 137 Okla. 52 , 278 P. 336 ; Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Gale, 136 Okla. 233 , 277 P. 242 ; Newman v. Kirk, 164 Okla. 147 , 23 P.2d 163 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Key v. Hill
neutral
2 sentences1938Key v. Hill, 93 Okla. 64 , 219 P. 308 ; Wass v. Vickery, 137 Okla. 52 , 278 P. 336 ; Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Gale, 136 Okla. 233 , 277 P. 242 ; Newman v. Kirk, 164 Okla. 147 , 23 P.2d 163 . 1938Key v. Hill, 93 Okla. 64 , 219 P. 308 ; Wass v. Vickery, 137 Okla. 52 , 278 P. 336 ; Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Gale, 136 Okla. 233 , 277 P. 242 ; Newman v. Kirk, 164 Okla. 147 , 23 P.2d 163 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Gale
green
2 sentences1938Key v. Hill, 93 Okla. 64 , 219 P. 308 ; Wass v. Vickery, 137 Okla. 52 , 278 P. 336 ; Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Gale, 136 Okla. 233 , 277 P. 242 ; Newman v. Kirk, 164 Okla. 147 , 23 P.2d 163 . 1938Key v. Hill, 93 Okla. 64 , 219 P. 308 ; Wass v. Vickery, 137 Okla. 52 , 278 P. 336 ; Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Gale, 136 Okla. 233 , 277 P. 242 ; Newman v. Kirk, 164 Okla. 147 , 23 P.2d 163 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Midland Valley Co. v. Hilliard
green
2 sentences1915Co. v. Hilliard, 46 Okla. 391 , 148 Pac. 1001 , that an instruction in practically the same language was not reversible error. 1915Co. v. Hilliard, 46 Okla. 391 , 148 Pac. 1001 , that an instruction in practically the same language was not reversible error. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Clark v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co.
neutral
2 sentences1912Co., 24 Okla. 764 , 108 Pac. 361 , while not so entirely in point, as to the form of the instruction, support the rule laid down in the Barkett case, and it is supported by numerous cases from other states. 1912Co., 24 Okla. 764 , 108 Pac. 361 , while not so entirely in point, as to the form of the instruction, support the rule laid down in the Barkett case, and it is supported by numerous cases from other states. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.