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 1929–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sharp v. Hallgreen1 sentence1983Compare Walton v. Tull, supra, with Sharp v. Hall, supra. The necessity for disclosure to the jury of the amount given in consideration for settlement would be a rare occurrence. | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Cal. Mut. Bldg & Loan Ass'ngreen2 sentences1982Bldg. & Loan Assn., 22 Cal.2d 474 , 139 P.2d 321, 325 [Cal.1943]; In re Monaghan’s Estate, 71 Ariz. 334 , 227 P.2d 227, 228 [1951], An issue raised, but not reached by the reviewing court, does not fall within the purview of this rule. 1982Bldg. & Loan Assn., 22 Cal.2d 474 , 139 P.2d 321, 325 [Cal.1943]; In re Monaghan’s Estate, 71 Ariz. 334 , 227 P.2d 227, 228 [1951], An issue raised, but not reached by the reviewing court, does not fall within the purview of this rule. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Monaghan's Estategreen2 sentences1982Bldg. & Loan Assn., 22 Cal.2d 474 , 139 P.2d 321, 325 [Cal.1943]; In re Monaghan’s Estate, 71 Ariz. 334 , 227 P.2d 227, 228 [1951], An issue raised, but not reached by the reviewing court, does not fall within the purview of this rule. 1982Bldg. & Loan Assn., 22 Cal.2d 474 , 139 P.2d 321, 325 [Cal.1943]; In re Monaghan’s Estate, 71 Ariz. 334 , 227 P.2d 227, 228 [1951], An issue raised, but not reached by the reviewing court, does not fall within the purview of this rule. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Application of Simmons
neutral
2 sentences1962Thus the instant proceeding is-.placed within the purview of the rule an-nunciated by this court in In Matter of Application of Simmons, # 77348-L for Writ of Mandamus, Okl.Cr., 358 P.2d 644 . 1962Cr., 358 P.2d 644 . | 2 | 1962–1962 |
Mustain v. Grand River Dam Authority
green
2 sentences2016“The plain reading of the RLUA indicates that the type of commercial activity which takes a landowner out of the purview of immunity must be connected with the invitees’ commercial use of the lands or waters.” Id. ¶ 11 Subsequently, in Mustain v. Grand River Dam Authority, 2003 OK 43 , 68 P.3d 991 , the Supreme Court again held that the RLUA’s exception to immunity did not apply. 2016“The plain reading of the RLUA indicates that the type of commercial activity which takes a landowner out of the purview of immunity must be connected with the invitees’ commercial use of the lands or waters.” Id. ¶ 11 Subsequently, in Mustain v. Grand River Dam Authority, 2003 OK 43 , 68 P.3d 991 , the Supreme Court again held that the RLUA’s exception to immunity did not apply. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Odum v. State
green
1 sentence1984Although the witnesses were instructed by the prosecutor not to mention any evidence of other crimes, there was no evidence that these responses were willfully injected rather than inadvertently, Odum v. State, 651 P.2d 703 (Okl.Cr.1982), that those answers were so unresponsive as to be “voluntary statements.” Bruner v. State, 612 P.2d 1375 (Okl.Cr.1980). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Bruner v. State
green
1 sentence1984Although the witnesses were instructed by the prosecutor not to mention any evidence of other crimes, there was no evidence that these responses were willfully injected rather than inadvertently, Odum v. State, 651 P.2d 703 (Okl.Cr.1982), that those answers were so unresponsive as to be “voluntary statements.” Bruner v. State, 612 P.2d 1375 (Okl.Cr.1980). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Carolina v. State
green
1 sentence1977This falls squarely within the purview of the doctrine enunciated in Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Wright v. State, Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 1304 (1973); Justus v. State, Okl.Cr., 512 P.2d 1389 (1973); and Carolina v. State, Okl.Cr., 524 P.2d 347 (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Justice v. State
green
1 sentence1977This falls squarely within the purview of the doctrine enunciated in Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Wright v. State, Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 1304 (1973); Justus v. State, Okl.Cr., 512 P.2d 1389 (1973); and Carolina v. State, Okl.Cr., 524 P.2d 347 (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Schneble v. Florida
green
2 sentences1977This falls squarely within the purview of the doctrine enunciated in Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Wright v. State, Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 1304 (1973); Justus v. State, Okl.Cr., 512 P.2d 1389 (1973); and Carolina v. State, Okl.Cr., 524 P.2d 347 (1974). 1977This falls squarely within the purview of the doctrine enunciated in Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Wright v. State, Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 1304 (1973); Justus v. State, Okl.Cr., 512 P.2d 1389 (1973); and Carolina v. State, Okl.Cr., 524 P.2d 347 (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Wright v. State
green
1 sentence1977This falls squarely within the purview of the doctrine enunciated in Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Wright v. State, Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 1304 (1973); Justus v. State, Okl.Cr., 512 P.2d 1389 (1973); and Carolina v. State, Okl.Cr., 524 P.2d 347 (1974). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
cluster 243517
green
1 sentence1973Plaintiffs did not proceed on the theory that such statement was a spontaneous declaration or excited utterance and within the purview of the rule set forth in Murphy, supra. This is evident from the record. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Norton v. Harmon
green
2 sentences1973In the trial court, plaintiffs relied on Norton v. Harmon, 192 Okl. 36 , 133 P.2d 206 . 1973In the trial court, plaintiffs relied on Norton v. Harmon, 192 Okl. 36 , 133 P.2d 206 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Massey v. State
neutral
1 sentence1962This being so, we believe that the instant cause comes within the purview of the rule annunciated in Massey v. State, Okl.Cr., 279 P.2d 383 , in which the court said: “It is the duty of the county attorney in his argument to the jury to confine : *281 himself to the facts as shown by the evidence. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Miller v. A. & B. Furn. Co.
neutral
2 sentences1951Furniture Co., 173 Okla. 319 , 48 P. 2d 1032 .” The instant casé is squarely within the purview of that rule. 1951Furniture Co., 173 Okla. 319 , 48 P. 2d 1032 .” The instant casé is squarely within the purview of that rule. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
City of Tulsa v. Lloyd
neutral
2 sentences1929Commercial Securities Co. v. Jolly, 103 Okla. 8 , 229 Pac. 193 ; City of Tulsa v. Lloyd, 129 Okla. 27 , 263 Pac. 152 . 1929Commercial Securities Co. v. Jolly, 103 Okla. 8 , 229 Pac. 193 ; City of Tulsa v. Lloyd, 129 Okla. 27 , 263 Pac. 152 . | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Commercial Securities Co. v. Jolly
neutral
2 sentences1929Commercial Securities Co. v. Jolly, 103 Okla. 8 , 229 Pac. 193 ; City of Tulsa v. Lloyd, 129 Okla. 27 , 263 Pac. 152 . 1929Commercial Securities Co. v. Jolly, 103 Okla. 8 , 229 Pac. 193 ; City of Tulsa v. Lloyd, 129 Okla. 27 , 263 Pac. 152 . | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.