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 1 courts 1911–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross
neutral
2 sentences1918Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross, 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 892 ; Eisminger v. Beman, 32 Okla. 818 , 124 Pac. 289 ; Enid City Ry. 1918Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross, 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 892 ; Eisminger v. Beman, 32 Okla. 818 , 124 Pac. 289 ; Enid City Ry. | 2 | 1912–1918 |
Hollis v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety
green
1 sentence2008Department of Public Safety, 2006 OK CIV APP at ¶8, 131 P.3d at 147 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
City of Sayre v. Rice
neutral
1 sentence1931Evidence has been introduced by the plaintiff in this case tending' to show that plaintiff or some members of plaintiff’s family have been sick, and you are instructed not to consider such evidence in arriving at a verdict in the ease, for the reason that it has not been shown or established sufficiently by the evidence that such sickness, if any, was the result of defendant’s act, and it has not been shown that the operation of the sewer system by defendant was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff’s sickness or sickness of plaintiff’s family.” The defendant contends that the refusal wa | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Dickerson v. Colgrove
green
2 sentences1928To sustain this contention, defendant cites Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578 , 25 L. 1928To sustain this contention, defendant cites Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578 , 25 L. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Muller v. Kelly
neutral
1 sentence1926Counsel cites Muller v. Kelley, 125 Fed. 212 , but in that case there was much evidence concerning the reasonableness of the fee charged, and it is said: “Under theSse circumstances * * * and the testimony that the fee charged was far in excess of the value of the services rendered, we think the plaintiff was entitled to have the jury pass upon his mental capacity * * * and to scrutinize the transaction, and see that it was fair and that no unconscionable advantage had been taken either of the necessities or the ignorance of the client.” Citing Shumaker v. Stiles, 102 Pa. 553 , and Taylor v. B | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Citizens' Bank of Headrick v. Citizens' State Bank of Altus
neutral
2 sentences1922Co. v. Toleikis, 67 Okla. 299 , 171 Pac. 17 ; Citizens’ Bank of Headrick v. Citizens’ State Bank of Altus, 75 Okla. 225 , 182 Pac. 657 ; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 542 ; Oil Fields & Santa Fe Ry. 1922Co. v. Toleikis, 67 Okla. 299 , 171 Pac. 17 ; Citizens’ Bank of Headrick v. Citizens’ State Bank of Altus, 75 Okla. 225 , 182 Pac. 657 ; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 542 ; Oil Fields & Santa Fe Ry. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Rock Island Coal Mining Co. v. Toleikis
neutral
2 sentences1922Co. v. Toleikis, 67 Okla. 299 , 171 Pac. 17 ; Citizens’ Bank of Headrick v. Citizens’ State Bank of Altus, 75 Okla. 225 , 182 Pac. 657 ; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 542 ; Oil Fields & Santa Fe Ry. 1922Co. v. Toleikis, 67 Okla. 299 , 171 Pac. 17 ; Citizens’ Bank of Headrick v. Citizens’ State Bank of Altus, 75 Okla. 225 , 182 Pac. 657 ; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 542 ; Oil Fields & Santa Fe Ry. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback
neutral
1 sentence1922Co. v. Toleikis, 67 Okla. 299 , 171 Pac. 17 ; Citizens’ Bank of Headrick v. Citizens’ State Bank of Altus, 75 Okla. 225 , 182 Pac. 657 ; Mangold & Glandt Bank v. Utterback, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 542 ; Oil Fields & Santa Fe Ry. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Eisminger v. Beman
green
2 sentences1918Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross, 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 892 ; Eisminger v. Beman, 32 Okla. 818 , 124 Pac. 289 ; Enid City Ry. 1918Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross, 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 892 ; Eisminger v. Beman, 32 Okla. 818 , 124 Pac. 289 ; Enid City Ry. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Harding v. Gillett
neutral
1 sentence1914Harding v. Gillett et al., 25 Okla. 99 , 107 Pac. 665 ; Metropolitan Ry. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Standifer v. Sullivan
neutral
2 sentences1913Standifer v. Sullivan„ 30 Okla. 365 , 120 Pac. 624 ; Nat. 1913Standifer v. Sullivan„ 30 Okla. 365 , 120 Pac. 624 ; Nat. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Citizens' Bank of Wakita v. Garnett
green
2 sentences1912Finch et al. v. Brown et al., 27 Okla. 217, 111 Pac. 391 ; Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross et al., 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 802 ; Citizens’ Bank of Wakita v. Garnett, 21 Okla. 200 , 95 Pac. 755 . 1912Finch et al. v. Brown et al., 27 Okla. 217, 111 Pac. 391 ; Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross et al., 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 802 ; Citizens’ Bank of Wakita v. Garnett, 21 Okla. 200 , 95 Pac. 755 . | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Finch v. Brown
green
2 sentences1912Finch et al. v. Brown et al., 27 Okla. 217, 111 Pac. 391 ; Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross et al., 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 802 ; Citizens’ Bank of Wakita v. Garnett, 21 Okla. 200 , 95 Pac. 755 . 1912Finch et al. v. Brown et al., 27 Okla. 217, 111 Pac. 391 ; Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Ross et al., 28 Okla. 697 , 115 Pac. 802 ; Citizens’ Bank of Wakita v. Garnett, 21 Okla. 200 , 95 Pac. 755 . | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Scully v. Williamson
green
2 sentences1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L. 1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Birch v. McNaught
neutral
2 sentences1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L. 1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Luzunaris v. Díaz
neutral
1 sentence1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
People v. Vázquez
neutral
1 sentence1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Rice v. Hodge
neutral
1 sentence1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Shaw v. Stewart
neutral
1 sentence1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Cunningham v. Barr
neutral
1 sentence1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Hill v. Bowers
neutral
1 sentence1911Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592 , 26 Pac. 13 .” See, also, Rice et al. v. Hodge et al., 26 Kan. 164 ; Cunningham et al. v. Barr et al., 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. 583 ; Shaw et al. v. Stewart, 43 Kan. 572 , 23 Pac. 616 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Higgins v. Miller
neutral
2 sentences1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L. 1911The law is well stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the case of Higgins v. Miller, 109 Ky. 209 , 58 S. W. 580 , in the syllabus, as follows: *632 “When property has been listed for sale with different real estate agents, the agent who induces the seller and purchaser to enter into the contract is entitled to the commission, though another agent may have first brought the parties together.” See, also, Birch v. McNaught, 23 Okla. 634 , 101 Pac. 1049 ; Scully v. Williamson, 26 Okla. 19 , 108 Pac. 395 , 27 L. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.