person against claim (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

person against claim in Oklahoma

10 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1927–2014 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Swyden Construction Company v. Whitegreen
okla · 1963 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014See also Swyden Const. Co. v. White, 1963 OK 162 , 383 P.2d 674, 675 (The existence of an employee-employer relationship constitutes a primary prerequisite to an award, and claimant has the burden to establish the status of an employee in relation to the person against whom a claim is asserted.).

2014See also Swyden Const. Co. v. White, 1963 OK 162 , 383 P.2d 674, 675 (The existence of an employee-employer relationship constitutes a primary prerequisite to an award, and claimant has the burden to establish the status of an employee in relation to the person against whom a claim is asserted.).

22
Hadley v. Farmers Nat. Bank of Oklahoma Citygreen
okla · 1927 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011Hadley v. Farmers' Nat'l Bank of Oklahoma City, 1927 OK 188 , 257 P. 1101, 11083 (quoting with approval Cye., vol. 30, at 1308).

11

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 (7)

CaseCitedYears
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts green
scotus · 1967
2 sentences

1990Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 143 , 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1985 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 [1967].

1990Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 143 , 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1985 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 [1967].

21989–1990
Carter Oil Co. v. Independent Torpedo Co. green
okla · 1924
2 sentences

1959Carter Oil Co. v. Independent Torpedo Co., 107 Okl. 209 , 232 P. 419 .

1959Carter Oil Co. v. Independent Torpedo Co., 107 Okl. 209 , 232 P. 419 .

21958–1959
McLain v. Oklahoma Cotton Growers' Ass'n neutral
okla · 1927
1 sentence

2011Hadley v. Farmers' Nat'l Bank of Oklahoma City, 1927 OK 188 , 257 P. 1101, 11083 (quoting with approval Cye., vol. 30, at 1308).

12011–2011
Mahl v. McMahan neutral
okla · 1958
1 sentence

1963Mahl v. McMahan, Okl., 325 P.2d 78 ; Nichols v. State Industrial Commission, 207 Okl. 167 , 248 P.2d 616 .

11963–1963
Nichols v. State Industrial Commission green
okla · 1952
2 sentences

1963Mahl v. McMahan, Okl., 325 P.2d 78 ; Nichols v. State Industrial Commission, 207 Okl. 167 , 248 P.2d 616 .

1963Mahl v. McMahan, Okl., 325 P.2d 78 ; Nichols v. State Industrial Commission, 207 Okl. 167 , 248 P.2d 616 .

11963–1963
Peoples Exchange Bank v. Miller green
kan · 1934
2 sentences

1947Jur. p. 221 , sec. 18, as follows: “The modern and better rule is that an accord and satisfaction made with one who is a stranger to the transaction to which it relates is good, and will bar an action on the claim involved, if the person against whom the claim was made has either authorized or ratified the settlement.” An illustration of the application of the rule announced is to be found in People’s Exchange Bank of Elmdale v. Miller, 139 Kan. 3 , 29 P. 2d 1079 .

1947Jur. p. 221 , sec. 18, as follows: “The modern and better rule is that an accord and satisfaction made with one who is a stranger to the transaction to which it relates is good, and will bar an action on the claim involved, if the person against whom the claim was made has either authorized or ratified the settlement.” An illustration of the application of the rule announced is to be found in People’s Exchange Bank of Elmdale v. Miller, 139 Kan. 3 , 29 P. 2d 1079 .

11947–1947
Schaff v. Hudgins neutral
okla · 1922
1 sentence

1927In the case of Schaff v. Hudgins, 96 Okla, 173 221 Pac. 90 , the action was for damages to a shipment of cattle, where a portion of them were killed and others were injured as in this case.

11927–1927

Where else courts name it

IL 109 (1906–2026) MS 100 (1977–2025) TX 42 (1952–2026) LA 39 (1903–2004) WA 13 (1942–2025) CA 13 (1939–2022) MI 12 (1914–2025) CT 11 (2000–2019) OH 11 (1911–2016) OK 10 (1927–2014) WI 8 (1957–2016) NY 8 (1848–1994) AL 7 (1888–2018) NC 7 (1974–2018) VT 7 (1974–2026) GA 7 (1882–2003) MD 6 (1965–2014) FL 6 (1938–2016) CO 5 (1983–2025) SC 5 (1932–2008) IA 5 (1886–1984) NM 4 (1947–2012) NJ 4 (1867–1995) NE 4 (1950–1998) UT 3 (2007–2013) RI 3 (2005–2009) DE 3 (1932–1990) MA 3 (1874–2008) PA 3 (1981–2016) VA 2 (1999–2004) MO 2 (1913–1986) AZ 2 (1997–2008) MN 2 (1977–2024)

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