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.
9 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christian v. Graygreen2 sentences2003As a general matter, an abuse of discretion review standard includes appellate examination of both fact and law issues [ Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10, ¶ 43 , 65 P.3d 591, 608 ] and abuse occurs when the ruling being reviewed is based on an erroneous legal conclusion or there is no rational basis in the evidence for the decision. 2003As a general matter, an abuse of discretion review standard includes appellate examination of both fact and law issues [ Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10, ¶ 43 , 65 P.3d 591, 608 ] and abuse occurs when the ruling being reviewed is based on an erroneous legal conclusion or there is no rational basis in the evidence for the decision. | 1 | 3 |
Abel v. Tisdalegreen2 sentences2003Fent v. Oklahoma Natural Gas, Co., 2001 OK 35, ¶ 12 , 27 P.3d 477, 481 ; Abel v. Tisdale, 1980 OK 161 , 619 P.2d 608, 612 (reversal for abuse of discretion proper if trial judge makes clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, against reason and evidence). ¶ 4 Further, when an assigned error is one of law a de novo review standard applies [ Christian v. Gray, supra, 2003 OK 10, at ¶ 43 , 65 P.3d at 608 ], a non-deferential, plenary and independent review of the trial court's legal ruling. 2003Fent v. Oklahoma Natural Gas, Co., 2001 OK 35, ¶ 12 , 27 P.3d 477, 481 ; Abel v. Tisdale, 1980 OK 161 , 619 P.2d 608, 612 (reversal for abuse of discretion proper if trial judge makes clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, against reason and evidence). ¶ 4 Further, when an assigned error is one of law a de novo review standard applies [ Christian v. Gray, supra, 2003 OK 10, at ¶ 43 , 65 P.3d at 608 ], a non-deferential, plenary and independent review of the trial court's legal ruling. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tibbetts v. Sight 'N Sound Appliance Centers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013"As a general matter, an abuse of discretion review standard includes appellate examination of both fact and law issues." Id. 2011"As a general matter, an abuse of discretion review standard includes appellate examination of both fact and law issues ... and abuse occurs when the ruling being reviewed is based on an erroneous legal conclusion or there is no rational basis in the evidence for the decision." Id. (citations omitted). | 5 | 2005–2013 |
Fent v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.
green
2 sentences2005See also Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10, ¶ 43 , 65 P.3d 591, 608 ; Fent v. Oklahoma Natural Gas, Co., 2001 OK 35, ¶ 12 , 27 P.3d 477, 481 . ¶ 9 On the other hand, matters presenting issues of law are reviewed de novo by the appellate court. 2005See also Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10, ¶ 43 , 65 P.3d 591, 608 ; Fent v. Oklahoma Natural Gas, Co., 2001 OK 35, ¶ 12 , 27 P.3d 477, 481 . ¶ 9 On the other hand, matters presenting issues of law are reviewed de novo by the appellate court. | 2 | 2003–2005 |
Morgan v. Galilean Health Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Morgan v. Galilean Health Enterprises, Inc., 1998 OK 130 , 977 P.2d 357, 364 . . 2013Morgan v. Galilean Health Enterprises, Inc., 1998 OK 130 , 977 P.2d 357, 364 . . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bennett v. Hall
green
2 sentences2005Given COCA's treatment of the damages issue, we assume it refers to that portion of the jury verdict dealing with the litigants' negligence. [12] COCA cites Baptist Building Corp. v. Barnes, 1994 OK CIV APP 71, ¶ 5 , 874 P.2d 68, 69 , for the proposition that where facts are undisputed an appeal presents only a question of law. [13] COCA relies on Bennett v. Hall, 1967 OK 122, ¶ 5 , 431 P.2d 339, 340-41 , for the abuse-of-discretion review standard. 2005Given COCA's treatment of the damages issue, we assume it refers to that portion of the jury verdict dealing with the litigants' negligence. [12] COCA cites Baptist Building Corp. v. Barnes, 1994 OK CIV APP 71, ¶ 5 , 874 P.2d 68, 69 , for the proposition that where facts are undisputed an appeal presents only a question of law. [13] COCA relies on Bennett v. Hall, 1967 OK 122, ¶ 5 , 431 P.2d 339, 340-41 , for the abuse-of-discretion review standard. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Baptist Building Corp. v. Barnes
neutral
2 sentences2005Given COCA's treatment of the damages issue, we assume it refers to that portion of the jury verdict dealing with the litigants' negligence. [12] COCA cites Baptist Building Corp. v. Barnes, 1994 OK CIV APP 71, ¶ 5 , 874 P.2d 68, 69 , for the proposition that where facts are undisputed an appeal presents only a question of law. [13] COCA relies on Bennett v. Hall, 1967 OK 122, ¶ 5 , 431 P.2d 339, 340-41 , for the abuse-of-discretion review standard. 2005Given COCA's treatment of the damages issue, we assume it refers to that portion of the jury verdict dealing with the litigants' negligence. [12] COCA cites Baptist Building Corp. v. Barnes, 1994 OK CIV APP 71, ¶ 5 , 874 P.2d 68, 69 , for the proposition that where facts are undisputed an appeal presents only a question of law. [13] COCA relies on Bennett v. Hall, 1967 OK 122, ¶ 5 , 431 P.2d 339, 340-41 , for the abuse-of-discretion review standard. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Bittle v. Bahe
green
1 sentence2003As a general matter, an abuse of discretion review standard includes appellate examination of both fact and law issues [Christian v. Gray, 2008 OK 10, ¶ 43 , 65 P.3d 591, 608 ] and abuse occurs when the ruling being reviewed is based on an erroneous legal conclusion or there is no rational basis in the evidence for the decision. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.