10 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1935–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hawkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Hawkins v. State, 1994 OK CR 83 , 891 P.2d 586, 596-97 ("No evidence of serious physical abuse, that is, gratuitous violence inflicted on the victim beyond the act of killing, is present in this case.”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 977 , 116 S.Ct. 480 , 133 L.Ed.2d 408 (1995). 159 . | 1 | 1 |
Tucker v. New Jersey State Prisongreen1 sentence2004See Hawkins v. State, 1994 OK CR 83 , 891 P.2d 586, 596-97 ("No evidence of serious physical abuse, that is, gratuitous violence inflicted on the victim beyond the act of killing, is present in this case.”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 977 , 116 S.Ct. 480 , 133 L.Ed.2d 408 (1995). 159 . | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. Oklahomagreen1 sentence2004See Hawkins v. State, 1994 OK CR 83 , 891 P.2d 586, 596-97 ("No evidence of serious physical abuse, that is, gratuitous violence inflicted on the victim beyond the act of killing, is present in this case.”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 977 , 116 S.Ct. 480 , 133 L.Ed.2d 408 (1995). 159 . | 1 | 1 |
Kelley v. Marylandgreen1 sentence2004See Hawkins v. State, 1994 OK CR 83 , 891 P.2d 586, 596-97 ("No evidence of serious physical abuse, that is, gratuitous violence inflicted on the victim beyond the act of killing, is present in this case.”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 977 , 116 S.Ct. 480 , 133 L.Ed.2d 408 (1995). 159 . | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Cook v. State, 650 P.2d 863, 868 (OM.Cr.1982) (the burden is upon the appellant to establish to the appellate court the fact that he was prejudiced in his substantial rights by the commission of the error). ¶ 15 In Proposition III, Appellant argues the accumulation of errors denied him a fair trial. | 1 | 1 |
Fox v. Stategreen1 sentence1995No issue of victim-impact evidence has been raised in this case, and no victim-impact evidence was presented at trial. [49] Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537, 557-58 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Revilla v. State, 877 P.2d 1143, 1153 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1372 (Okl.Cr. 1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993); Duvall, 825 P.2d at 635-36 ; Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 578-79 (Lumpkin, J., specially concurring) (Okl. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Clarence Hendersongreen2 sentences1995See also United States v. Henderson, 693 F.2d 1028 (11th Cir.1982), in which the court modified the test, concluding that “[i]t is not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilty, provided a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1030 (emphasis added). 1995See also United States v. Henderson, 693 F.2d 1028 (11th Cir.1982), in which the court modified the test, concluding that “[i]t is not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilty, provided a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1030 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Boyd v. Stategreen1 sentence1995No issue of victim-impact evidence has been raised in this case, and no victim-impact evidence was presented at trial. [49] Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537, 557-58 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Revilla v. State, 877 P.2d 1143, 1153 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1372 (Okl.Cr. 1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993); Duvall, 825 P.2d at 635-36 ; Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 578-79 (Lumpkin, J., specially concurring) (Okl. | 1 | 1 |
Revilla v. Stategreen1 sentence1995No issue of victim-impact evidence has been raised in this case, and no victim-impact evidence was presented at trial. [49] Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537, 557-58 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Revilla v. State, 877 P.2d 1143, 1153 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1372 (Okl.Cr. 1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993); Duvall, 825 P.2d at 635-36 ; Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 578-79 (Lumpkin, J., specially concurring) (Okl. | 1 | 1 |
Neill v. Stategreen1 sentence1995No issue of victim-impact evidence has been raised in this case, and no victim-impact evidence was presented at trial. [49] Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537, 557-58 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Revilla v. State, 877 P.2d 1143, 1153 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1372 (Okl.Cr. 1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993); Duvall, 825 P.2d at 635-36 ; Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 578-79 (Lumpkin, J., specially concurring) (Okl. | 1 | 1 |
Palmer v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Generally speaMng, when a jury must be instructed on a certain subject, the relevant uniform instruction “shall be used unless the court determines that it does not accurately state the law.” Palmer v. State, 788 P.2d 404, 408 (Okl.Cr.1990), citing 12 O.S.1991, § 577.2 (emphasis in original). 1994Generally speaking, when a jury must be instructed on a certain subject, the relevant uniform instruction "shall be used unless the court determines that it does not accurately state the law." Palmer v. State, 788 P.2d 404, 408 (Okl.Cr. 1990), citing 12 O.S. 1991 , § 577.2 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Easlick v. State
green
2 sentences2012In Lay v. State, 2008 OK CR 7 , 179 P.3d 615 , the trial court modified this instruction by eliminating the reasonable hypothesis test in its third and fourth sentences in order to conform to Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15 , 90 P.3d 556, 559 . 2012In Lay v. State, 2008 OK CR 7 , 179 P.3d 615 , the trial court modified this instruction by eliminating the reasonable hypothesis test in its third and fourth sentences in order to conform to Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15 , 90 P.3d 556, 559 . | 2 | 2011–2012 |
Lay v. State
green
2 sentences2012In Lay v. State, 2008 OK CR 7 , 179 P.3d 615 , the trial court modified this instruction by eliminating the reasonable hypothesis test in its third and fourth sentences in order to conform to Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15 , 90 P.3d 556, 559 . 2012In Lay v. State, 2008 OK CR 7 , 179 P.3d 615 , the trial court modified this instruction by eliminating the reasonable hypothesis test in its third and fourth sentences in order to conform to Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15 , 90 P.3d 556, 559 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Duvall v. State
green
1 sentence1995No issue of victim-impact evidence has been raised in this case, and no victim-impact evidence was presented at trial. [49] Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537, 557-58 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Revilla v. State, 877 P.2d 1143, 1153 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1372 (Okl.Cr. 1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993); Duvall, 825 P.2d at 635-36 ; Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 578-79 (Lumpkin, J., specially concurring) (Okl. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Boyd v. Oklahoma
green
1 sentence1995No issue of victim-impact evidence has been raised in this case, and no victim-impact evidence was presented at trial. [49] Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537, 557-58 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Revilla v. State, 877 P.2d 1143, 1153 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1372 (Okl.Cr. 1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993); Duvall, 825 P.2d at 635-36 ; Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 578-79 (Lumpkin, J., specially concurring) (Okl. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Newtop v. United States District Court
green
1 sentence1995No issue of victim-impact evidence has been raised in this case, and no victim-impact evidence was presented at trial. [49] Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537, 557-58 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Revilla v. State, 877 P.2d 1143, 1153 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1372 (Okl.Cr. 1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993); Duvall, 825 P.2d at 635-36 ; Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 578-79 (Lumpkin, J., specially concurring) (Okl. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Curtis v. Barby
green
1 sentence1973It follows that since this was not done in this case the judgment of Speakman against his code-fendant, Wood, cannot be sustained.” [emphasis added] The modified rule announced above was followed in Central National Bank of Okmulgee et al. v. Sharp, supra; Turner et ux. v. Dexter, supra; Boepple et ux. v. Estill, supra; and Curtis v. Barby, supra. But in none of these cases does it appear the cross-petitioning defendant whose action was dismissed for his failure to serve a codefendant with summons, either before or after answer day, was himself brought into the action after the original answer | 1 | 1973–1973 |
McFadyen and Brown v. Masters
green
2 sentences1943In McFadyen et al. v. Masters, 11 Okla. 16 , 66 P. 284 , it was held in paragraph 4 of the syllabus as follows: “The statutory action of replevin is sufficiently flexible to authorize a settlement of all the equities in the property in controversy as between the parties to the action.” The following statement is contained in that opinion: ' “. . . 1943In McFadyen et al. v. Masters, 11 Okla. 16 , 66 P. 284 , it was held in paragraph 4 of the syllabus as follows: “The statutory action of replevin is sufficiently flexible to authorize a settlement of all the equities in the property in controversy as between the parties to the action.” The following statement is contained in that opinion: ' “. . . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Board of County Commissioners v. Dunlop
neutral
2 sentences1935In the second syllabus of the case of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Kay, Oklahoma, v. Robert Dunlop, County Treasurer, 17 Okla. 53 , 87 P. 590 , we find the following rule: “Where depositories for county funds have been designated by the board of county commissioners, and the bonds thereof approved, it becomes the duty of the county treasurer to use these depositories for depositing the county funds therein. 1935In the second syllabus of the case of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Kay, Oklahoma, v. Robert Dunlop, County Treasurer, 17 Okla. 53 , 87 P. 590 , we find the following rule: “Where depositories for county funds have been designated by the board of county commissioners, and the bonds thereof approved, it becomes the duty of the county treasurer to use these depositories for depositing the county funds therein. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.