424 Oklahoma opinions name it 4 courts 1893–2026 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sullivan v. Forty-Second West Corp.green2 sentences2022Provided, further, that the court shall furnish copies of the instructions to the plaintiff and defendant prior to the time and instructions are given by the court. 12 O.S. 2011 , § 578 Sullivan v. Forty-Second West Corp. , 1998 OK 48 961 P.2d 801 Sullivan v. Forty-Second West Corp. , 1998 OK 48 961 P.2d 801 ¶14 Fundamental error occurs when the trial court fails to accurately state the law and "compromises the integrity of the proceeding to such a degree that the error has a substantial effect on the rights of one or more of the parties." Sullivan , at ¶ 7, 784 P.2d at 802. 2022Provided, further, that the court shall furnish copies of the instructions to the plaintiff and defendant prior to the time and instructions are given by the court. 12 O.S. 2011 , § 578 Sullivan v. Forty-Second West Corp. , 1998 OK 48 961 P.2d 801 Sullivan v. Forty-Second West Corp. , 1998 OK 48 961 P.2d 801 ¶14 Fundamental error occurs when the trial court fails to accurately state the law and "compromises the integrity of the proceeding to such a degree that the error has a substantial effect on the rights of one or more of the parties." Sullivan , at ¶ 7, 784 P.2d at 802. | 6 | 12 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Wallace v. State, 1996 OK CR 8, ¶ 4, 910 P.2d 1084, 1086; Thomas v. State , 1965 OK CR 70, ¶ 4, 404 P.2d 71, 73. 1970Cr., 404 P.2d 71 (1965), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals stated in numbered paragraph 1 of its syllabus: "The fundamental rule of construction of a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed in the statute. | 5 | 11 |
Fuller v. Odomgreen2 sentences2003Fuller v. Odom, 741 P.2d 449 , 452 (Okla. 1987). 2001See, e.g., Fuller v. Odom, 741 P.2d 449 , 452 (Okla. 1987). | 4 | 5 |
Sellars v. McCulloughgreen2 sentences2021See Sellars v. McCullough , 1989 OK 155, ¶¶ 9-12 , 784 P.2d 1060, 1062-63 ("Fundamental error is narrowly defined as a substantial misstatement of a fundamental legal principle which appears on the face of the instructions."). 6 Typically such cases involve media outlets. 2021See Sellars v. McCullough , 1989 OK 155, ¶¶ 9-12 , 784 P.2d 1060, 1062-63 ("Fundamental error is narrowly defined as a substantial misstatement of a fundamental legal principle which appears on the face of the instructions."). 6 Typically such cases involve media outlets. | 3 | 5 |
COVEL v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2020See also Covel v. Rodriguez , 2012 OK 5 , ¶¶ 8-10, 272 P.3d 705, 710 ("the fact that evidence may be incompetent under one or more exclusionary rules of evidence does not destroy its probative effect if it is admitted without objection;" and failing to object the error is waived on appeal in the absence of a fundamental error having a substantial effect on the rights of a party). 39 Rogers v. Citizens National Bank in Okmulgee , 1962 OK 176 , 373 P.2d 256, 258 , explaining the holding in Benzel v. Pitchford , 1952 OK 217 , 245 P.2d 1131 ("we held a cause will not be reversed for admission of 2020See also Covel v. Rodriguez , 2012 OK 5 , ¶¶ 8-10, 272 P.3d 705, 710 ("the fact that evidence may be incompetent under one or more exclusionary rules of evidence does not destroy its probative effect if it is admitted without objection;" and failing to object the error is waived on appeal in the absence of a fundamental error having a substantial effect on the rights of a party). 39 Rogers v. Citizens National Bank in Okmulgee , 1962 OK 176 , 373 P.2d 256, 258 , explaining the holding in Benzel v. Pitchford , 1952 OK 217 , 245 P.2d 1131 ("we held a cause will not be reversed for admission of | 3 | 5 |
Rogers v. QuikTrip Corp.green2 sentences2024H. , 2015 OK 26, ¶ 9, 348 P.3d 1089, 1092 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute."); Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp. , 2010 OK 3, 11, 230 P.3d 853, 859 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent."); State ex rel. 2024H. , 2015 OK 26, ¶ 9, 348 P.3d 1089, 1092 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute."); Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp. , 2010 OK 3, 11, 230 P.3d 853, 859 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent."); State ex rel. | 3 | 3 |
STATE EX REL. DOH v. Robertsongreen2 sentences2024Oklahoma Dept. of Health v. Robertson , 2006 OK 99, ¶ 6, 152 P.3d 875, 877--78 ("Legislative intent governs statutory interpretation and this intent is generally ascertained from a statute's plain language."); In re Abrams' Will , 1938 OK 162, 77 P.2d 101, 103 (court has a duty to ascertain and enforce the legislative intent). 26 Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 9, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 27 Strack, Trustee of Patricia Ann Strack, etc. v. Continental Resources, Inc., 2021 OK 21, ¶18, 507 P.3d 609, 616. 28 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. and Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32, ¶9, 512 P.3d 2024Oklahoma Dept. of Health v. Robertson , 2006 OK 99, ¶ 6, 152 P.3d 875, 877--78 ("Legislative intent governs statutory interpretation and this intent is generally ascertained from a statute's plain language."); In re Abrams' Will , 1938 OK 162, 77 P.2d 101, 103 (court has a duty to ascertain and enforce the legislative intent). 26 Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 9, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 27 Strack, Trustee of Patricia Ann Strack, etc. v. Continental Resources, Inc., 2021 OK 21, ¶18, 507 P.3d 609, 616. 28 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. and Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32, ¶9, 512 P.3d | 3 | 3 |
In Re Abrams' Willgreen2 sentences2024Oklahoma Dept. of Health v. Robertson , 2006 OK 99, ¶ 6, 152 P.3d 875, 877--78 ("Legislative intent governs statutory interpretation and this intent is generally ascertained from a statute's plain language."); In re Abrams' Will , 1938 OK 162, 77 P.2d 101, 103 (court has a duty to ascertain and enforce the legislative intent). 26 Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 9, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 27 Strack, Trustee of Patricia Ann Strack, etc. v. Continental Resources, Inc., 2021 OK 21, ¶18, 507 P.3d 609, 616. 28 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. and Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32, ¶9, 512 P.3d 2024Oklahoma Dept. of Health v. Robertson , 2006 OK 99, ¶ 6, 152 P.3d 875, 877--78 ("Legislative intent governs statutory interpretation and this intent is generally ascertained from a statute's plain language."); In re Abrams' Will , 1938 OK 162, 77 P.2d 101, 103 (court has a duty to ascertain and enforce the legislative intent). 26 Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 9, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 27 Strack, Trustee of Patricia Ann Strack, etc. v. Continental Resources, Inc., 2021 OK 21, ¶18, 507 P.3d 609, 616. 28 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. and Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32, ¶9, 512 P.3d | 3 | 3 |
| BOYLE v. ASAP ENERGY, INC.green | 3 | 3 |
| Fike v. Petersgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Hames v. Andersongreen | 3 | 3 |
| Digital Design Group, Inc. v. Information Builders, Inc.green | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Tategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Hamilton v. State Bargreen | 3 | 3 |
| Crandell v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Box v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Roberts v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
Jackson v. Independent School District No. 16green2 sentences1999"The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and, if possible, give effect to the intention and purpose of the Legislature as expressed in the statute." Jackson v. ISD-16 of Payne County, 648 P.2d 26 , 29 (Okla. 1982). ¶ 7 The type of order being examined in your inquiry is an order of the court directed to the defendant to reappear, remanding him to the custody of the sheriff until such time as bond is lawfully posted. 1997In analyzing the use of the terms employed and employment used in the last two sentences of Section 509.3, we must look to the statute as a whole and to the use of the terms elsewhere in the Oklahoma School Code in order to give a consistent and logical construction to the section. ¶ 9 "The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and, if possible, give effect to the intention and purpose of the Legislature as expressed in the statute." Jackson v. Independent School District No. 16 of Payne County, 648 P.2d 26 , 29 (Okla. 1982). | 2 | 23 |
Fanning v. Browngreen2 sentences2024Therefore, the resolution of the question depends on what it means to "conduct a raffle." ¶8 "The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute." Fanning v. Brown , 2004 OK 7, ¶ 10, 85 P.3d 841, 845. 2024Therefore, the resolution of the question depends on what it means to "conduct a raffle." ¶8 "The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute." Fanning v. Brown , 2004 OK 7, ¶ 10, 85 P.3d 841, 845. | 2 | 10 |
Marty v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2023Statutory words are to be given their ordinary sense except when a contrary intention plainly appears.") (citations omitted); Hill v. Board of Education, District I-009, Jones, Oklahoma , 1997 OK 10711 , ¶ 5, 944 P.2d 930, 931 ("[t]The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and, if possible, give effect to the Legislature's intention and purpose as expressed in a statute.") (citations omitted). 2021Statutory words are to be given their ordinary sense except when a contrary intention plainly appears.") (citations omitted); Hill v. Board of Education, District I-009, Jones, Oklahoma , 1997 OK 11, ¶ 5 , 944 P.2d 930, 931 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and, if possible, give effect to the Legislature's intention and purpose as expressed in a statute.") (citations omitted). | 2 | 6 |
GERHART v. STATEgreen2 sentences2026State v. Allen , 2021 OK CR 14 492 P.3d 27 ¶6 To prove lewd proposals to a child, the State was required to show that Appellant knowingly and intentionally made an oral lewd or indecent proposal to a child under sixteen years of age for the child to have unlawful sexual relations or intercourse with any person while Appellant was at least three years older than the child. 21 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1123 ¶7 "A fundamental principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature." Washburne v. State , 2024 OK CR 9 548 P.3d 786 Gerhart v. State , 2015 OK CR 2026State v. Allen , 2021 OK CR 14 492 P.3d 27 ¶6 To prove lewd proposals to a child, the State was required to show that Appellant knowingly and intentionally made an oral lewd or indecent proposal to a child under sixteen years of age for the child to have unlawful sexual relations or intercourse with any person while Appellant was at least three years older than the child. 21 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1123 ¶7 "A fundamental principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature." Washburne v. State , 2024 OK CR 9 548 P.3d 786 Gerhart v. State , 2015 OK CR | 2 | 4 |
T.H. v. Stategreen2 sentences2024H. , 2015 OK 26, ¶ 9, 348 P.3d 1089, 1092 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute."); Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp. , 2010 OK 3, 11, 230 P.3d 853, 859 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent."); State ex rel. 2024H. , 2015 OK 26, ¶ 9, 348 P.3d 1089, 1092 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute."); Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp. , 2010 OK 3, 11, 230 P.3d 853, 859 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent."); State ex rel. | 2 | 3 |
Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Homegreen2 sentences2024Oklahoma Dept. of Health v. Robertson , 2006 OK 99, ¶ 6, 152 P.3d 875, 877--78 ("Legislative intent governs statutory interpretation and this intent is generally ascertained from a statute's plain language."); In re Abrams' Will , 1938 OK 162, 77 P.2d 101, 103 (court has a duty to ascertain and enforce the legislative intent). 26 Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 9, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 27 Strack, Trustee of Patricia Ann Strack, etc. v. Continental Resources, Inc., 2021 OK 21, ¶18, 507 P.3d 609, 616. 28 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. and Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32, ¶9, 512 P.3d 2024Oklahoma Dept. of Health v. Robertson , 2006 OK 99, ¶ 6, 152 P.3d 875, 877--78 ("Legislative intent governs statutory interpretation and this intent is generally ascertained from a statute's plain language."); In re Abrams' Will , 1938 OK 162, 77 P.2d 101, 103 (court has a duty to ascertain and enforce the legislative intent). 26 Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 9, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 27 Strack, Trustee of Patricia Ann Strack, etc. v. Continental Resources, Inc., 2021 OK 21, ¶18, 507 P.3d 609, 616. 28 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. and Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32, ¶9, 512 P.3d | 2 | 3 |
IN THE MATTER OF T.H.green2 sentences2024H. , 2015 OK 26, ¶ 9, 348 P.3d 1089, 1092 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute."); Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp. , 2010 OK 3, 11, 230 P.3d 853, 859 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent."); State ex rel. 2024H. , 2015 OK 26, ¶ 9, 348 P.3d 1089, 1092 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute."); Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp. , 2010 OK 3, 11, 230 P.3d 853, 859 ("The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent."); State ex rel. | 2 | 3 |
| Tucker v. Stategreen | 2 | 3 |
| Tobler v. Stategreen | 2 | 3 |
| GREENWOOD CENTRE, LTD v. NIGHTINGALEgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Andersongreen | 2 | 2 |
| First Security Bank of Idaho, Nat. Ass'n v. Rogersgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Watson v. Jonesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Quarles v. Panchalgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Schierenbeck v. Minorgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Broadrick v. Oklahomagreen | 2 | 2 |
YDF, INC. v. Schlumar, Inc.green2 sentences2019Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart , 2003 OK 11 , ¶4, 64 P.3d 1113, 1115 . ¶6 "The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of the statute." YDF, Inc. v. Schlumar, Inc., 2006 OK 32 , ¶6, 136 P.3d 656, 658 . 2019Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart , 2003 OK 11 , ¶4, 64 P.3d 1113, 1115 . ¶6 "The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of the statute." YDF, Inc. v. Schlumar, Inc., 2006 OK 32 , ¶6, 136 P.3d 656, 658 . | 1 | 8 |
Wallace v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Wallace v. State, 1996 OK CR 8, ¶ 4, 910 P.2d 1084, 1086; Thomas v. State , 1965 OK CR 70, ¶ 4, 404 P.2d 71, 73. 2015Wallace v. State, 1996 OK CR 8, ¶ 4, 910 P.2d 1084, 1086; Thomas v. State , 1965 OK CR 70, ¶ 4, 404 P.2d 71, 73. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2019Arganbright v. State , 2014 OK CR 5, ¶ 17 , 328 P.3d 1212, 1216 ; Young , 1999 OK CR 14, ¶ 27 , 989 P.2d at 955 . 2019Arganbright v. State , 2014 OK CR 5, ¶ 17 , 328 P.3d 1212, 1216 ; Young , 1999 OK CR 14, ¶ 27 , 989 P.2d at 955 . | 1 | 4 |
World Publishing Co. v. Millergreen2 sentences2016Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32 , 935 P.2d 319 ; Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79 , 989 P.2d 448 . ¶ 11 The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and intent “is ascertained from the whole act in light of its general purpose and objective considering relevant provisions together to give full force and effect to each.” World Publishing Co. v. Miller, 2001 OK 49 , 32 P.3d 829, 832 (footnotes omitted). 2016Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32 , 935 P.2d 319 ; Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79 , 989 P.2d 448 . ¶ 11 The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and intent “is ascertained from the whole act in light of its general purpose and objective considering relevant provisions together to give full force and effect to each.” World Publishing Co. v. Miller, 2001 OK 49 , 32 P.3d 829, 832 (footnotes omitted). | 1 | 4 |
STATE v. IVENgreen2 sentences2016State v. Iven, 2014 OK CR 8, ¶ 13 , 335 P.3d 264, 268 . 2016State v. Iven, 2014 OK CR 8, ¶ 13 , 335 P.3d 264, 268 . | 1 | 4 |
Taliaferro v. Shahsavarigreen2 sentences2012Fundamental error "compromises the integrity of the proceeding to such a degree that the [Jury instruction] has a substantial effect on the rights of one or more of the parties," (emphasis added), id., 17, and "may occur when the trial court does not accurately instruct the jury on the law." Taliaferro v. Shahsavari, 2006 OK 96, ¶ 25 , 154 P.3d 1240, 1247-1248 . 1 45 Division I of the Court of Civil Appeal recently reviewed for fundamental error the identical issue with a jury instruction in a parental rights termination proceeding which was based, in part, 31 on the parents' failure to correc 2012Fundamental error "compromises the integrity of the proceeding to such a degree that the [Jury instruction] has a substantial effect on the rights of one or more of the parties," (emphasis added), id., 17, and "may occur when the trial court does not accurately instruct the jury on the law." Taliaferro v. Shahsavari, 2006 OK 96, ¶ 25 , 154 P.3d 1240, 1247-1248 . 1 45 Division I of the Court of Civil Appeal recently reviewed for fundamental error the identical issue with a jury instruction in a parental rights termination proceeding which was based, in part, 31 on the parents' failure to correc | 1 | 4 |
| SOTO v. STATEgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Durant v. Cicio
green
2 sentences2011"The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute." See City of Durant v. Cicio , 50 P.3d 218 , 221 (Okla. 2002). 2011The express language of the statutes makes the tax lien superior only to "liens, conveyances or encumbrances filed subsequent thereto ." Id. (emphasis added). ¶ 4 "The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute." See City of Durant v. Cicio , 50 P.3d 218 , 221 (Okla. 2002). | 13 | 2004–2011 |
Kirk v. State
neutral
2 sentences1949Cr. 203 , 145 P. 307 : “ ‘It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that the character of the defendant cannot be impeached or attacked by the state, unless he puts his character in issue by introducing evidence of good character.’ ” Such was the holding in Smith v. State, 75 Okla. 1947Cr. 203 , 145 P. 307 , this court stated: “It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that the character of the defendant cannot be impeached or attacked by the state, unless he puts his character in issue by introducing evidence of good character.” Says Bishop: “Bad character is never admissible in evidence against a defendant as ground for presuming guilt. | 11 | 1916–1949 |
Humphries v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2011"Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the language will be given its plain meaning." Humphries v. Lewis , 67 P.3d 333 , 335 (Okla. 2003). 2011"Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the language will be given its plain meaning." Humphries v. Lewis , 67 P.3d 333 , 335 (Okla. 2003). | 5 | 2005–2011 |
Lewis v. Schafer
green
2 sentences1960In Lewis v. Schafer, 163 Okl. 94 , 20 P.2d 1048 , it is said in the first paragraph of the syllabus as follows: “It is a fundamental rule that equity, having once attached in a proper proceedings, will administer complete relief on all questions properly raised by the evidence, regardless of whether or not such questions or issues are specifically raised by the pleadings, as equity will not permit a mere form to conceal the real position and substantial rights of the parties. 1960In Lewis v. Schafer, 163 Okl. 94 , 20 P.2d 1048 , it is said in the first paragraph of the syllabus as follows: “It is a fundamental rule that equity, having once attached in a proper proceedings, will administer complete relief on all questions properly raised by the evidence, regardless of whether or not such questions or issues are specifically raised by the pleadings, as equity will not permit a mere form to conceal the real position and substantial rights of the parties. | 5 | 1937–1960 |
State ex rel. Mashburn v. Stice
green
2 sentences2014State v. Stice, 2012 OK CR 14, ¶ 11 , 288 P.3d 247, 250 . 2014State v. Stice, 2012 OK CR 14, ¶ 11 , 288 P.3d 247, 250 . | 4 | 2014–2014 |
West v. State
green
2 sentences1993West v. State, 764 P.2d 528 (Okl.Cr. 1988). 1993West v. State, 764 P.2d 528 (Okl.Cr.1988). | 4 | 1991–1993 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences1987Martin, and Harris v. State, 645 P.2d 1036 (Okl. 1987Harris v. State, 645 P.2d 1036 (Okl.Cr.1982). | 4 | 1983–1987 |
Cavett v. Geary Board of Education
green
2 sentences1986A fundamental rule of statutory construction is "where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction thereof." Cavett v. Geary Board of Education , 587 P.2d 991 , 993 (Okla. 1978). 1985It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that "[w]here the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction thereof." Cavett v. Geary Board of Education , 587 P.2d 991 , 993 (Okla. 1978). | 4 | 1985–1986 |
| Rogers v. Citizens National Bank in Okmulgee green | 3 | 2020–2020 |
| Benzel v. Pitchford green | 3 | 2020–2020 |
LEE v. BUENO
green
2 sentences2020See also Covel v. Rodriguez , 2012 OK 5 , ¶¶ 8-10, 272 P.3d 705, 710 ("the fact that evidence may be incompetent under one or more exclusionary rules of evidence does not destroy its probative effect if it is admitted without objection;" and failing to object the error is waived on appeal in the absence of a fundamental error having a substantial effect on the rights of a party). 39 Rogers v. Citizens National Bank in Okmulgee , 1962 OK 176 , 373 P.2d 256, 258 , explaining the holding in Benzel v. Pitchford , 1952 OK 217 , 245 P.2d 1131 ("we held a cause will not be reversed for admission of 2020See also Covel v. Rodriguez , 2012 OK 5 , ¶¶ 8-10, 272 P.3d 705, 710 ("the fact that evidence may be incompetent under one or more exclusionary rules of evidence does not destroy its probative effect if it is admitted without objection;" and failing to object the error is waived on appeal in the absence of a fundamental error having a substantial effect on the rights of a party). 39 Rogers v. Citizens National Bank in Okmulgee , 1962 OK 176 , 373 P.2d 256, 258 , explaining the holding in Benzel v. Pitchford , 1952 OK 217 , 245 P.2d 1131 ("we held a cause will not be reversed for admission of | 3 | 2020–2020 |
| Morrison v. State green | 3 | 1943–1989 |
| Smith v. State green | 3 | 1972–1988 |
| McVicker v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS OF COUNTY OF CADDO green | 3 | 1972–1977 |
| Jeremiah v. State green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Salathiel green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| General Motors Corp. v. Romein green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| Landgraf v. USI Film Products green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| Gillette v. Gillette neutral | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| Riffe Petroleum Co. v. Great Nat. Corp., Inc. green | 2 | 1996–2009 |
| Bd. of Regents, Etc. v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| Strong v. Laubach green | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| Grand River Dam Authority v. State green | 2 | 2000–2004 |
| In Re Paternity of JLH green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| Krebsbach v. Henley green | 2 | 2001–2003 |
| Street v. New York green | 2 | 1997–1998 |
| PSO v. State Ex Rel. Corp. Com'n green | 2 | 1997–1998 |
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.