11 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1915–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chester v. Stategreen2 sentences1991In his argument he cites Chester v. State, 485 P.2d 1065, 1067 (Okl.Cr.1971), wherein this Court held it improper to charge an accused with former convictions under the Habitual Criminal Statute when charging the accused with the crime of escape because it is a necessary presumption that one incarcerated in a penal institution has been convicted of a felony. 1987Chester v. State, 485 P.2d 1065 (Okl.Cr.1971); Herrod v. State, 512 P.2d 1401 (Okl.Cr.1973). | 1 | 2 |
Oregon v. Bradshawgreen2 sentences1993As stated in Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045-1046 , 103 S.Ct. 2830, 2835 , 77 L.Ed.2d 405, 412 (1983): Although ambiguous, the respondent’s question in this case as to what was going to happen to him evinced a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation; it was not merely a necessary inquiry arising out of the incidents of the custodial relationship. 1993As stated in Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045-1046 , 103 S.Ct. 2830, 2835 , 77 L.Ed.2d 405, 412 (1983): Although ambiguous, the respondent’s question in this case as to what was going to happen to him evinced a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation; it was not merely a necessary inquiry arising out of the incidents of the custodial relationship. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller
green
2 sentences1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . 1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Matter of Estate of Severns
green
2 sentences1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . 1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Matter of Estate of Eversole
green
2 sentences1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . 1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller
neutral
2 sentences1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . 1997In re Estate of Sevens, 1982 OK 64 , 650 P.2d 854 , 856, citing Wellsville Oil Co. v. Miller, 48 Okla. 386 , 150 P. 186 (1915), aff'd, 243 U.S. 6 , 37 S.Ct. 362 , 61 L.Ed. 559 (1917); In re Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114 , 885 P.2d 657, 661 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Delfrate v. State
green
1 sentence1991Appellant also cites Delfrate v. State, 732 P.2d 900 (Okl.Cr.1987), where this court held that the Habitual Criminal Statute could not be used to enhance the punishment of those convicted of escape while awaiting trial under 21 O.S.1981, § 443. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Thayer v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
green
1 sentence1990Ibid., 613 P.2d at 1044 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Herrod v. State
neutral
1 sentence1987Chester v. State, 485 P.2d 1065 (Okl.Cr.1971); Herrod v. State, 512 P.2d 1401 (Okl.Cr.1973). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Lavender v. Lavender
green
1 sentence1970The plaintiff is granted an additional $1,000.00 for attorney’s fee, which sum shall include the cost of printing the brief. 12 O.S.1961, § 1276; Lavender v. Lavender, Okl., 435 P.2d 583 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Parks v. Hughes
green
1 sentence1966In Parks v. Hughes, Okl., 312 P.2d 435 , this Court reversed a judgment of the trial court and remanded with directions to take such further action as would accord with right and justice and this Court’s opinion. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Jackson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1961The jury did not believe the killing was at all necessary, and the evidence supports its verdict in that regard. 22 O.S. 1951 § 1066; Wingfield v. State, 89 Okl.Cr. *928 45, 205 P.2d 320 ; Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 293 P.2d 377 ; Sandy v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 80 , 231 P.2d 374 ; Bunn v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 367 , 190 P.2d 464 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Sandy v. State
neutral
1 sentence1961The jury did not believe the killing was at all necessary, and the evidence supports its verdict in that regard. 22 O.S. 1951 § 1066; Wingfield v. State, 89 Okl.Cr. *928 45, 205 P.2d 320 ; Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 293 P.2d 377 ; Sandy v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 80 , 231 P.2d 374 ; Bunn v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 367 , 190 P.2d 464 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Wingfield v. State
green
1 sentence1961The jury did not believe the killing was at all necessary, and the evidence supports its verdict in that regard. 22 O.S. 1951 § 1066; Wingfield v. State, 89 Okl.Cr. *928 45, 205 P.2d 320 ; Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 293 P.2d 377 ; Sandy v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 80 , 231 P.2d 374 ; Bunn v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 367 , 190 P.2d 464 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Bunn v. State
green
2 sentences1961The jury did not believe the killing was at all necessary, and the evidence supports its verdict in that regard. 22 O.S. 1951 § 1066; Wingfield v. State, 89 Okl.Cr. *928 45, 205 P.2d 320 ; Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 293 P.2d 377 ; Sandy v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 80 , 231 P.2d 374 ; Bunn v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 367 , 190 P.2d 464 . 1961The jury did not believe the killing was at all necessary, and the evidence supports its verdict in that regard. 22 O.S. 1951 § 1066; Wingfield v. State, 89 Okl.Cr. *928 45, 205 P.2d 320 ; Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 293 P.2d 377 ; Sandy v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 80 , 231 P.2d 374 ; Bunn v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 367 , 190 P.2d 464 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
In Re Fred A. Brown
neutral
1 sentence1961The jury did not believe the killing was at all necessary, and the evidence supports its verdict in that regard. 22 O.S. 1951 § 1066; Wingfield v. State, 89 Okl.Cr. *928 45, 205 P.2d 320 ; Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 293 P.2d 377 ; Sandy v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 80 , 231 P.2d 374 ; Bunn v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 367 , 190 P.2d 464 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Creek Land & Improvement Co. v. Davis
green
2 sentences1924Even if the tender were not made in due form, as contended by plaintiff, it was not a necessary requirement, for, in the case of Creek Land & Investment Co. v. Davis, 28 Okla. 579 , 115 Pac. 468 , this court held: “When a tender is necessary to establishment of any right against another party, it is waived or becomes unnecessary when it is reasonably certain that the offer, if made, would have been refused.” This proposition has been reaffirmed in the case of Rupard et al. v. Rees, 93 Okla. 49 , 220 Pac. 893 . 1924Even if the tender were not made in due form, as contended by plaintiff, it was not a necessary requirement, for, in the case of Creek Land & Investment Co. v. Davis, 28 Okla. 579 , 115 Pac. 468 , this court held: “When a tender is necessary to establishment of any right against another party, it is waived or becomes unnecessary when it is reasonably certain that the offer, if made, would have been refused.” This proposition has been reaffirmed in the case of Rupard et al. v. Rees, 93 Okla. 49 , 220 Pac. 893 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Rupard v. Rees
neutral
1 sentence1924Even if the tender were not made in due form, as contended by plaintiff, it was not a necessary requirement, for, in the case of Creek Land & Investment Co. v. Davis, 28 Okla. 579 , 115 Pac. 468 , this court held: “When a tender is necessary to establishment of any right against another party, it is waived or becomes unnecessary when it is reasonably certain that the offer, if made, would have been refused.” This proposition has been reaffirmed in the case of Rupard et al. v. Rees, 93 Okla. 49 , 220 Pac. 893 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
McIver v. Katsiolis
green
1 sentence1924Even if the tender were not made in due form, as contended by plaintiff, it was not a necessary requirement, for, in the case of Creek Land & Investment Co. v. Davis, 28 Okla. 579 , 115 Pac. 468 , this court held: “When a tender is necessary to establishment of any right against another party, it is waived or becomes unnecessary when it is reasonably certain that the offer, if made, would have been refused.” This proposition has been reaffirmed in the case of Rupard et al. v. Rees, 93 Okla. 49 , 220 Pac. 893 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Board of Com'rs of Beaver County v. Langston
neutral
2 sentences1923This court, in the case of Board of Comrs. of Beaver Co. v. Langston et al., 41 Okla. 715 , 139 Pac. 956 , held: “To have reviewed in the Supreme Court errors occurring at the trial of a ease, a motion for a new trial must have been filed and acted on by the trial court, exceptions taken thereto, and the ruling thereon assigned as error in the petition in error.” Under chapter 34, Session Laws of 1923, it is no longer necessary to assign as error the overruling of a motion for new trial, but the filing of a motion for new trial is a necessary requirement. 1923This court, in the case of Board of Comrs. of Beaver Co. v. Langston et al., 41 Okla. 715 , 139 Pac. 956 , held: “To have reviewed in the Supreme Court errors occurring at the trial of a ease, a motion for a new trial must have been filed and acted on by the trial court, exceptions taken thereto, and the ruling thereon assigned as error in the petition in error.” Under chapter 34, Session Laws of 1923, it is no longer necessary to assign as error the overruling of a motion for new trial, but the filing of a motion for new trial is a necessary requirement. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
State v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1915We notice that the question raised by the defendants on their demurrer was so debatable as to have reached the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas in the case of the State v. Smith, 83 Kan. 240 , 111 Pac. 184 , and, while it was there decided adversely to defendants’ contention, yet attorneys in this case deemed it so debatable that the Supreme Court was called upon to render a decision thereon. *601 For the reasons stated, the case will be reversed and remanded, with instructions to the court to permit defendants to answer. 1915We notice that the question raised by the defendants on their demurrer was so debatable as to have reached the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas in the case of the State v. Smith, 83 Kan. 240 , 111 Pac. 184 , and, while it was there decided adversely to defendants’ contention, yet attorneys in this case deemed it so debatable that the Supreme Court was called upon to render a decision thereon. *601 For the reasons stated, the case will be reversed and remanded, with instructions to the court to permit defendants to answer. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.