scheduled hearing in Oklahoma

10 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2017 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 (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Sandlin v. Pharoahgreen okla · 1938 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Bank of Sapulpa v. Hufford, 1987 OK CIV APP 92, ¶ 12 , 754 P.2d 561, 565 ; Sandlin v. Pharoah, 1938 OK 143, ¶¶ 0 (2), 13,15, 78 P.2d 284, 286 . ¶ 15 In the present case, the trial court permitted Appellant’s first and second attorneys to withdraw based on Appellant’s “failure to abide by the attorney-client agreement.” Some two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing, the trial court permitted Appellant’s third attorney to withdraw based on Appellant’s “refusal to abide by [the] Attorney-Client contract agreement and by mutual consent of’ Appellant and the third attorney, and the third attorney p 2013Bank of Sapulpa v. Hufford, 1987 OK CIV APP 92, ¶ 12 , 754 P.2d 561, 565 ; Sandlin v. Pharoah, 1938 OK 143, ¶¶ 0 (2), 13,15, 78 P.2d 284, 286 . ¶ 15 In the present case, the trial court permitted Appellant’s first and second attorneys to withdraw based on Appellant’s “failure to abide by the attorney-client agreement.” Some two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing, the trial court permitted Appellant’s third attorney to withdraw based on Appellant’s “refusal to abide by [the] Attorney-Client contract agreement and by mutual consent of’ Appellant and the third attorney, and the third attorney p	2	2
Security National Bank of Sapulpa v. Huffordgreen oklacivapp · 1987 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Bank of Sapulpa v. Hufford, 1987 OK CIV APP 92, ¶ 12 , 754 P.2d 561, 565 ; Sandlin v. Pharoah, 1938 OK 143, ¶¶ 0 (2), 13,15, 78 P.2d 284, 286 . ¶ 15 In the present case, the trial court permitted Appellant’s first and second attorneys to withdraw based on Appellant’s “failure to abide by the attorney-client agreement.” Some two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing, the trial court permitted Appellant’s third attorney to withdraw based on Appellant’s “refusal to abide by [the] Attorney-Client contract agreement and by mutual consent of’ Appellant and the third attorney, and the third attorney p 2013Bank of Sapulpa v. Hufford, 1987 OK CIV APP 92, ¶ 12 , 754 P.2d 561, 565 ; Sandlin v. Pharoah, 1938 OK 143, ¶¶ 0 (2), 13,15, 78 P.2d 284, 286 . ¶ 15 In the present case, the trial court permitted Appellant’s first and second attorneys to withdraw based on Appellant’s “failure to abide by the attorney-client agreement.” Some two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing, the trial court permitted Appellant’s third attorney to withdraw based on Appellant’s “refusal to abide by [the] Attorney-Client contract agreement and by mutual consent of’ Appellant and the third attorney, and the third attorney p	1	2
Matter of Estate of Katschorgreen okla · 1975 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Appellee responds, and asserts that, given the hardship of additional travel from Michigan which a continuance would have caused her, and because Appellant did not demonstrate he diligently sought substitute counsel after withdrawal of his third attorney, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance. ¶ 14 “The general rule in Oklahoma is that the granting or refusing of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the refusal to grant a continuance is not l’eversible error unless an abuse of discretion is shown.” In the Matter of the Estate of K 2013Appellee responds, and asserts that, given the hardship of additional travel from Michigan which a continuance would have caused her, and because Appellant did not demonstrate he diligently sought substitute counsel after withdrawal of his third attorney, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance. ¶ 14 “The general rule in Oklahoma is that the granting or refusing of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the refusal to grant a continuance is not l’eversible error unless an abuse of discretion is shown.” In the Matter of the Estate of K	1	2
Cummins v. State Industrial Commissiongreen okla · 1953 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 1 sentence 1988NOTES [1] Okl., 757 P.2d 810 [1988]. [2] See footnote infra note 8 for the pertinent provisions of 85 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 42. [3] The terms of Rule 28, Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court, 85 O.S. 1981 , Ch. 4, App., are: "An application for an order directing an award to be certified for entry on the district court judgment docket may be heard after notice to the respondent and insurance carrier has been given by mail, or delivered, at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing thereon, at which respondent and insurance carrier shall be afforded opportunity to show cause why the app	1	1
DeVore v. Maidt Plastering Co.green okla · 1951 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988NOTES [1] Okl., 757 P.2d 810 [1988]. [2] See footnote infra note 8 for the pertinent provisions of 85 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 42. [3] The terms of Rule 28, Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court, 85 O.S. 1981 , Ch. 4, App., are: "An application for an order directing an award to be certified for entry on the district court judgment docket may be heard after notice to the respondent and insurance carrier has been given by mail, or delivered, at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing thereon, at which respondent and insurance carrier shall be afforded opportunity to show cause why the app 1988NOTES [1] Okl., 757 P.2d 810 [1988]. [2] See footnote infra note 8 for the pertinent provisions of 85 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 42. [3] The terms of Rule 28, Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court, 85 O.S. 1981 , Ch. 4, App., are: "An application for an order directing an award to be certified for entry on the district court judgment docket may be heard after notice to the respondent and insurance carrier has been given by mail, or delivered, at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing thereon, at which respondent and insurance carrier shall be afforded opportunity to show cause why the app	1	1
Leffler v. McPherson Brothers Transportgreen okla · 1964 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 1 sentence 1988NOTES [1] Okl., 757 P.2d 810 [1988]. [2] See footnote infra note 8 for the pertinent provisions of 85 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 42. [3] The terms of Rule 28, Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court, 85 O.S. 1981 , Ch. 4, App., are: "An application for an order directing an award to be certified for entry on the district court judgment docket may be heard after notice to the respondent and insurance carrier has been given by mail, or delivered, at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing thereon, at which respondent and insurance carrier shall be afforded opportunity to show cause why the app	1	1
Corzine v. Traders Compressgreen okla · 1945 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988NOTES [1] Okl., 757 P.2d 810 [1988]. [2] See footnote infra note 8 for the pertinent provisions of 85 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 42. [3] The terms of Rule 28, Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court, 85 O.S. 1981 , Ch. 4, App., are: "An application for an order directing an award to be certified for entry on the district court judgment docket may be heard after notice to the respondent and insurance carrier has been given by mail, or delivered, at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing thereon, at which respondent and insurance carrier shall be afforded opportunity to show cause why the app 1988NOTES [1] Okl., 757 P.2d 810 [1988]. [2] See footnote infra note 8 for the pertinent provisions of 85 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 42. [3] The terms of Rule 28, Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court, 85 O.S. 1981 , Ch. 4, App., are: "An application for an order directing an award to be certified for entry on the district court judgment docket may be heard after notice to the respondent and insurance carrier has been given by mail, or delivered, at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing thereon, at which respondent and insurance carrier shall be afforded opportunity to show cause why the app	1	1
Simms v. Hobbsgreen okla · 1966 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977 1 sentence 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966).	1	1
Grannis v. Ordeangreen scotus · 1914 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977 2 sentences 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966). 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966).	1	1
Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co.green okla · 1968 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977 1 sentence 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Chase v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety green okla · 1990 2 sentences 2017Dept. of Public Safety , 1990 OK 78, 795 P.2d 1048, which holds a sworn report with the officer's reasonable grounds statement is a statutory prerequisite for DPS authority to revoke a driver's license, and absent said statement, DPS' revocation order is subject to invalidation on timely appeal. 2017Dept. of Public Safety , 1990 OK 78, 795 P.2d 1048, which holds a sworn report with the officer's reasonable grounds statement is a statutory prerequisite for DPS authority to revoke a driver's license, and absent said statement, DPS' revocation order is subject to invalidation on timely appeal.	1	2017–2017
Towne v. Hubbard green · 2000 2 sentences 2007We ordered the parties to specifically address whether this matter should be governed by the principles set forth by this Court in In re Towne, 2000 OK 30 , 3 P.3d 154 . 2007We ordered the parties to specifically address whether this matter should be governed by the principles set forth by this Court in In re Towne, 2000 OK 30 , 3 P.3d 154 .	1	2007–2007
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Phillips green okla · 1990 2 sentences 2003Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Phillips, 1990 OK 4 , 786 P.2d 1242 (Phillips failed to respond to the complaint or appear at the scheduled hearing; he was suspended for three years). 2003Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Phillips, 1990 OK 4 , 786 P.2d 1242 (Phillips failed to respond to the complaint or appear at the scheduled hearing; he was suspended for three years).	1	2003–2003
Smith v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety green okla · 1984 2 sentences 1997Safety, 1984 OK 16, ¶ 6 , 680 P.2d 365, 368 . 3 We thus find that if a licensee fails to exercise his opportunity to be heard at the administrative level, and DPS has issued an order sustaining the revocation based upon evidence presented by DPS at the scheduled hearing, the licensee has exhausted the available administrative remedies. 1997Safety, 1984 OK 16, ¶ 6 , 680 P.2d 365, 368 . 3 We thus find that if a licensee fails to exercise his opportunity to be heard at the administrative level, and DPS has issued an order sustaining the revocation based upon evidence presented by DPS at the scheduled hearing, the licensee has exhausted the available administrative remedies.	1	1997–1997
Lum v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. green okla · 1987 2 sentences 1988NOTES [1] Okl., 757 P.2d 810 [1988]. [2] See footnote infra note 8 for the pertinent provisions of 85 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 42. [3] The terms of Rule 28, Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court, 85 O.S. 1981 , Ch. 4, App., are: "An application for an order directing an award to be certified for entry on the district court judgment docket may be heard after notice to the respondent and insurance carrier has been given by mail, or delivered, at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing thereon, at which respondent and insurance carrier shall be afforded opportunity to show cause why the app 1988NOTES [1] Okl., 757 P.2d 810 [1988]. [2] See footnote infra note 8 for the pertinent provisions of 85 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 42. [3] The terms of Rule 28, Rules of the Workers' Compensation Court, 85 O.S. 1981 , Ch. 4, App., are: "An application for an order directing an award to be certified for entry on the district court judgment docket may be heard after notice to the respondent and insurance carrier has been given by mail, or delivered, at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing thereon, at which respondent and insurance carrier shall be afforded opportunity to show cause why the app	1	1988–1988
P. F. Scheidelman v. State Liquor Authority neutral nyappdiv · 1970 1 sentence 1979In the 1970 case of Brown v. Tofany, Commr., 33 A.D.2d 984 , 307 N.Y.S.2d 268, 269 , the court there said a petition for an original writ addressed to its trial division as opposed to an appeal would not lie if the Commissioner had jurisdiction and that he did have jurisdiction in the proceeding under the designated New York statute “to conduct hearings” “and to adjourn hearings to a later date when the arresting officer fails to appear at a scheduled hearing.” Therefore the Court reversed the order of the trial judge restraining the Commissioner from proceeding.	1	1979–1979
Brown v. Tofany neutral nyappdiv · 1970 1 sentence 1979In the 1970 case of Brown v. Tofany, Commr., 33 A.D.2d 984 , 307 N.Y.S.2d 268, 269 , the court there said a petition for an original writ addressed to its trial division as opposed to an appeal would not lie if the Commissioner had jurisdiction and that he did have jurisdiction in the proceeding under the designated New York statute “to conduct hearings” “and to adjourn hearings to a later date when the arresting officer fails to appear at a scheduled hearing.” Therefore the Court reversed the order of the trial judge restraining the Commissioner from proceeding.	1	1979–1979
Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee green scotus · 1915 2 sentences 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966). 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966).	1	1977–1977
Schroeder v. City of New York green scotus · 1962 2 sentences 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966). 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966).	1	1977–1977
Armstrong v. Manzo green scotus · 1965 2 sentences 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966). 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966).	1	1977–1977
Foster v. State green okla · 1976 1 sentence 1977In construing that section in a case involving a bondsman, this court said in Foster v. State, Okl., 551 P.2d 1119 , at page 1121: “If a day certain is fixed for defendant’s scheduled appearance when he is released on an appearance bond, no further notice is required in connection with the particular scheduled hearing.	1	1977–1977
Boddie v. Connecticut green scotus · 1971 2 sentences 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966). 1977Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 , 85 S.Ct. 1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 211 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 , 89 A.L.R.2d 1398 (1962); Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189 , 35 S.Ct. 579 , 59 L.Ed. 910 (1915); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363, 1369 (1914); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713, 719 (Okl.1968); Simms v. Hobbs, 411 P.2d 503, 510 (Okl.1966).	1	1977–1977

Where else courts name it

CA 87 (1968–2026) PA 79 (1952–2026) NY 78 (1957–2026) OH 60 (1990–2026) FL 50 (1980–2026) TX 41 (1996–2025) IL 40 (1971–2026) AL 25 (1987–2026) GA 21 (1988–2025) NC 18 (1977–2022) WA 17 (1999–2024) LA 17 (1986–2024) IN 15 (1978–2024) AZ 14 (1978–2026) MO 14 (1978–2025) DC 12 (1982–2021) UT 12 (2004–2025) MD 12 (1974–2020) MS 11 (1994–2025) CT 11 (1994–2024) VA 10 (1986–2026) OK 10 (1977–2017) ME 10 (1970–2024) MA 10 (1981–2024) NE 9 (2004–2026) IA 9 (1994–2024) DE 9 (2017–2026) MI 8 (1968–2023) NJ 8 (1960–2022) NM 8 (1983–2025) AR 7 (1997–2026) VT 7 (1987–2022) ND 7 (1989–2019) NV 7 (1986–2023) TN 6 (2002–2025) WI 6 (1975–2012) CO 6 (1978–2019) OR 6 (1974–2021) SC 6 (1981–2021) KY 5 (2018–2025) ID 4 (1987–2011) KS 4 (1997–2021) MN 4 (1987–2008) WY 3 (1988–1998) RI 3 (1967–1986) AK 3 (1993–2013) WV 3 (1998–2003) SD 3 (1982–2000) HI 3 (1996–2020) NH 2 (2006–2024) VI 2 (2013–2013)

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