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 3 courts 1987–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Wheatgreen1 sentence2024The Court examined cases "illustrat[ing] that a golfer's duty depends on the particular facts of each case and may sometimes extend beyond the intended flight of the ball to encompass a wider zone of risk." Thomas , ¶ 14, 143 P.3d at 770 (citation omitted). ¶24 The Court also addressed the defense of assumption of risk, stating: When someone is injured by an errant golf ball inside the bounds of a golf course, it may be generally presumed as a matter of law that they, in venturing onto the course during play, have assumed the risk of injury. | 1 | 1 |
Hershel v. University Hospital Foundationgreen1 sentence1992See Hershel v. University Hospital Foundation, 610 P.2d 237 (Okla.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Sodikoff v. State Bargreen2 sentences1988See Sodikoff v. State Bar of California, 14 Cal.3d 422 , 121 Cal.Rptr. 467, 471 , 535 P.2d 331, 335 [1975], where the court addressed the standard of conduct as follows: “When an attorney assumes a fiduciary relationship and violates his duty in a manner that would justify disciplinary action if the relationship had been that of attorney and client, he may properly be disciplined for his misconduct.” 1988See Sodikoff v. State Bar of California, 14 Cal.3d 422 , 121 Cal.Rptr. 467, 471 , 535 P.2d 331, 335 [1975], where the court addressed the standard of conduct as follows: “When an attorney assumes a fiduciary relationship and violates his duty in a manner that would justify disciplinary action if the relationship had been that of attorney and client, he may properly be disciplined for his misconduct.” | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Irwin v. Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC
green
2 sentences2024In Irwin v. Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC , 175 F.Supp.3d 1064 (C.D.Ill. 2016), the Court addressed a claim for unjust enrichment after a data breach potentially exposed customers' personal and financial information to unauthorized third parties. 2024In Irwin v. Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC , 175 F.Supp.3d 1064 (C.D.Ill. 2016), the Court addressed a claim for unjust enrichment after a data breach potentially exposed customers' personal and financial information to unauthorized third parties. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
ESTENSON LOGISTICS v. HOPSON
neutral
2 sentences2016Standard of Review ¶ 11 In Estenson Logistics v. Hopson, 2015 OK CIV APP 71, ¶¶ 7-8 , 357 P.3d 486, 488 , the Court addressed the standard of review under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act: The Legislature recently converted the workers’ compensation system in Oklahoma from judicial to administrative by adopting the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act. 2016Standard of Review ¶ 11 In Estenson Logistics v. Hopson, 2015 OK CIV APP 71, ¶¶ 7-8 , 357 P.3d 486, 488 , the Court addressed the standard of review under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act: The Legislature recently converted the workers’ compensation system in Oklahoma from judicial to administrative by adopting the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences2012T8 This Court addressed the doctrine of collateral estoppel in Smith v. State, 2002 OK CR 2 , 46 P.3d 136 , where we stated in pertinent part: The doctrine of collateral estoppel stands for the principle that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 442 , 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194 , 25 LEd.2d 469 (1970) This rule of law is applicable to criminal proceedings and is embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. 2012T8 This Court addressed the doctrine of collateral estoppel in Smith v. State, 2002 OK CR 2 , 46 P.3d 136 , where we stated in pertinent part: The doctrine of collateral estoppel stands for the principle that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 442 , 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194 , 25 LEd.2d 469 (1970) This rule of law is applicable to criminal proceedings and is embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2012T8 This Court addressed the doctrine of collateral estoppel in Smith v. State, 2002 OK CR 2 , 46 P.3d 136 , where we stated in pertinent part: The doctrine of collateral estoppel stands for the principle that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 442 , 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194 , 25 LEd.2d 469 (1970) This rule of law is applicable to criminal proceedings and is embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. 2012T8 This Court addressed the doctrine of collateral estoppel in Smith v. State, 2002 OK CR 2 , 46 P.3d 136 , where we stated in pertinent part: The doctrine of collateral estoppel stands for the principle that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 442 , 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194 , 25 LEd.2d 469 (1970) This rule of law is applicable to criminal proceedings and is embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bell v. State Ex Rel. Lane
green
2 sentences1997Lane, 714 P.2d 205 (Okl.Cr.1986) this Court addressed a claim under the IADA wherein the Petitioner alleged extensions of time granted to the State were unreasonable. 22 O.S.1991, § 1347, art. 1997In Bell v. State ex rel Lane, 714 P.2d 205 (Okl.Cr.1986) this Court addressed a claim under the IADA wherein the Petitioner alleged extensions of time granted to the State were unreasonable. 22 O.S.1991, § 1347, art. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Willis v. Nowata Land and Cattle Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1996In Willis v. Nowata Land and Cattle Co., Inc., 789 P.2d 1282 (Okl.1989), this court addressed a claim similar to the present fact pattern. 1996In Willis v. Nowata Land and Cattle Co., Inc., 789 P.2d 1282 (Okl.1989), this court addressed a claim similar to the present fact pattern. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Lowe
green
2 sentences1987Lowe, 640 P.2d 1361 (Okl. 1982) this Court addressed the claim by Mr. Lowe that disciplinary proceedings should be dismissed against him on the basis of improper jurisdiction and procedure because of the long delay in conducting the trial. 1987Lowe, 640 P.2d 1361 (Okl.1982) this Court addressed the claim by Mr. Lowe that disciplinary proceedings should be dismissed against him on the basis of improper jurisdiction and procedure because of the long delay in conducting the trial. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.