resolution claim (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

resolution claim in Oklahoma

11 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2017 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Cuesta-Rodriguez v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 2010 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2015–2017
2 sentences

2017Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 2010 OK CR 23, ¶ 34 , 241 P.3d 214, 228 .

2017Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 2010 OK CR 23, ¶ 34 , 241 P.3d 214, 228 .

24
BARK v. LAKE COUNTRY CHEVROLET CADILLAC, LLCgreen
oklacivapp · 2014 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Because the latter claim involves the 'making of an agreement to arbitrate under § 4 [of the FAA], it is for the court to resolve. 388 U.S. at 403-04 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 ." Bark v. Lake Country Chevrolet, 321 P.3d at 1011 (emphasis added).

2015Because the latter claim involves the 'making' of an agreement to arbitrate under § 4 [of the FAA], it is for the court to resolve. 388 U.S. at 403-04 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 ." Bark v. Lake Country Chevrolet, 321 P.3d at 1011 (emphasis added).

22
Jackson v. Hankinsongreen
njsuperctappdiv · 1967 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994"Whether the defendants conduct displayed the amount of care called for in the special circumstances was for the jury's resolution under the standard of care given it by the judge." Jackson v. Hankinson , at p. 513, 229 A.2d 267 . [4] School bus drivers are required to transport children safely between the school and home and it is a necessary corollary to this duty that they be accorded the concomitant authority to maintain safety on the school bus.

1994“Whether the defendants conduct displayed the amount of care called for in the special circumstances was for the jury’s resolution under the standard of care given it by the judge.” Jackson v. Hankinson, at p. 513, 229 A.2d 267 . 4 School bus drivers are required to transport children safely between the school and home and it is a necessary corollary to this duty that they be accorded the concomitant authority to maintain safety on the school bus.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. green
scotus · 1967
2 sentences

2015Co., 388 U.S. 395 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 ] submits to arbitrators the resolution of a claim of fraud in the inducement of the entire contract, as contrasted with a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration agree- . ment itself.

2015Co., 388 U.S. 395 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 ] submits to arbitrators the resolution of a claim of fraud in the inducement of the entire contract, as contrasted with a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration agree- . ment itself.

42014–2015
Spahr Ex Rel. Spahr v. Secco green
ca10 · 2003
2 sentences

2014As the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals observed in Spahr v. Secco, supra: As noted, Prima Paint submits to arbitrators the resolution of a claim of fraud in the inducement of the entire contract, as contrasted with a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration agreement itself.

2014As the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals observed in Spahr v. Secco , supra: As noted, Prima Paint submits to arbitrators the resolution of a claim of fraud in the inducement of the entire contract, as contrasted with a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration agreement itself.

22014–2014
Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co. green
okla · 1968
2 sentences

1982Appellants admittedly cite pertinent authority in Mullane, supra, and Bomford, supra. Although familiar, the footings of the Mullane decision are both abstractly fundamental and immediately indispensable to the resolution of the error here offered.

1982Appellants admittedly cite pertinent authority in Mul-lane, supra, and Bomford, supra. Although familiar, the footings of the Mullane decision are both abstractly fundamental and immediately indispensable to the resolution of the error here offered.

11982–1982

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2615 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2803 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1401 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.7 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 937 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 938 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 941 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 942 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 949 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 150.36 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 150.37 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 62 (1966–2026) CT 51 (1989–2025) CA 44 (1929–2026) IL 34 (1985–2025) PA 33 (1902–2026) NC 25 (1989–2026) FL 21 (1974–2022) OH 18 (1986–2022) MA 12 (1993–2025) MD 12 (1976–2017) MS 11 (1928–2022) WA 11 (2003–2014) MO 11 (1959–2024) OK 11 (1982–2017) NY 11 (1964–2026) NJ 9 (1945–2026) GA 8 (1994–2023) OR 7 (1987–2017) WI 7 (1998–2024) KY 6 (2010–2025) DE 6 (1976–2026) WV 6 (1982–2009) IN 6 (2006–2026) WY 6 (2004–2011) TN 5 (2001–2007) AL 5 (1992–2026) CO 5 (1985–2011) MI 5 (1983–2025) KS 5 (1995–2024) VT 4 (2007–2015) AZ 4 (1975–2024) VA 4 (1982–1999) LA 4 (1989–2021) HI 3 (1994–2016) DC 3 (1978–2013) AK 3 (2008–2024) IA 3 (1986–2016) MT 3 (1998–2017) NE 2 (2001–2006) NV 2 (1995–2000) MN 2 (1990–2016) ID 2 (1987–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check