9 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1934–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Owen Creek Presbyterian Church v. Taggartgreen2 sentences2000In no case can a person, claiming by way of subrogation against an estate, stand in a better position than the person whose rights he claims to be subrogated. wok ock [However], if the facts and circumstances show definitely that at the time of payment the right of subrogation was not intended to be exercised, and could not be exercised without injustice to others, no such right will be held to exist. (footnotes omitted) See also Chamness v. Chamness' Estate, 53 Ind.App. 225 , 101 N.E. 323 (1913)(an heir having a personal interest in estate may be entitled to be subrogated to right of creditor 2000In no case can a person, claiming by way of subrogation against an estate, stand in a better position than the person whose rights he claims to be subrogated. wok ock [However], if the facts and circumstances show definitely that at the time of payment the right of subrogation was not intended to be exercised, and could not be exercised without injustice to others, no such right will be held to exist. (footnotes omitted) See also Chamness v. Chamness' Estate, 53 Ind.App. 225 , 101 N.E. 323 (1913)(an heir having a personal interest in estate may be entitled to be subrogated to right of creditor | 1 | 1 |
Boswell v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Boswell v. State, 181 Okla. 435 , 74 P.2d 940, 943 (1937). 1998See Boswell v. State, 181 Okla. 435 , 74 P.2d 940, 943 (1937). | 1 | 1 |
Application of Oklahoma Educational Television Authoritygreen1 sentence1998Id. at 1031 (emphasis added). ถ 20 Continuing, the Court held: If [the Public Building Fund] and its proceeds did not exist and therefore was not available for use in behalf of the citizenship of the state, then the state could not have those things now purchased with that fund and its proceeds without using tax money of the state for such purpose. | 1 | 1 |
Bickel v. Bickelgreen2 sentences1994See e.g., Kendrick v. Kendrick, 271 Ala. 372 , 124 So.2d 78, 79 (1960) (Exemption provision exempting pension payments from the claims of creditors do not apply to awards for alimony or child support.); Bickel v. Bickel, 17 Ariz. App. 29 , 495 P.2d 154, 156 (1972) (Homestead exemption did not protect recovery of attorney's fees awarded as part of divorce decree awarding support.) Because the circumstances and policy considerations differ in every case, we need not list all of the cases which have considered the effect of homestead exemptions on alimony and child support claims. 1994See e.g., Kendrick v. Kendrick, 271 Ala. 372 , 124 So.2d 78, 79 (1960) (Exemption provision exempting pension payments from the claims of creditors do not apply to awards for alimony or child support.); Bickel v. Bickel, 17 Ariz. App. 29 , 495 P.2d 154, 156 (1972) (Homestead exemption did not protect recovery of attorney's fees awarded as part of divorce decree awarding support.) Because the circumstances and policy considerations differ in every case, we need not list all of the cases which have considered the effect of homestead exemptions on alimony and child support claims. | 1 | 1 |
Kendrick v. Kendrickgreen2 sentences1994See e.g., Kendrick v. Kendrick, 271 Ala. 372 , 124 So.2d 78, 79 (1960) (Exemption provision exempting pension payments from the claims of creditors do not apply to awards for alimony or child support.); Bickel v. Bickel, 17 Ariz. App. 29 , 495 P.2d 154, 156 (1972) (Homestead exemption did not protect recovery of attorney's fees awarded as part of divorce decree awarding support.) Because the circumstances and policy considerations differ in every case, we need not list all of the cases which have considered the effect of homestead exemptions on alimony and child support claims. 1994See e.g., Kendrick v. Kendrick, 271 Ala. 372 , 124 So.2d 78, 79 (1960) (Exemption provision exempting pension payments from the claims of creditors do not apply to awards for alimony or child support.); Bickel v. Bickel, 17 Ariz. App. 29 , 495 P.2d 154, 156 (1972) (Homestead exemption did not protect recovery of attorney's fees awarded as part of divorce decree awarding support.) Because the circumstances and policy considerations differ in every case, we need not list all of the cases which have considered the effect of homestead exemptions on alimony and child support claims. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fent v. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority
green
2 sentences2016Capitol Improvement Auth., 1999 OK 64 , ¶ 3, 984 P.2d 200 . *792 A. - Transfers from the Unclaimed Property Fund to the State's General Revenue Fund do not create a debt in violation of Okla. 2016Capitol Improvement Auth., 1999 OK 64 , ¶ 3, 984 P.2d 200 . *792 A. - Transfers from the Unclaimed Property Fund to the State's General Revenue Fund do not create a debt in violation of Okla. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Douglass v. Douglass
green
2 sentences2006For example, in Douglass v. Douglass, 1947 OK 385 , 188 P.2d 221 , a father sold his son land relying on the son's promise that he would execute a note and mortgage thereon. 2006For example, in Douglass v. Douglass, 1947 OK 385 , 188 P.2d 221 , a father sold his son land relying on the son's promise that he would execute a note and mortgage thereon. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Suydam v. Voorhees
neutral
1 sentence2000In no case can a person, claiming by way of subrogation against an estate, stand in a better position than the person whose rights he claims to be subrogated. wok ock [However], if the facts and circumstances show definitely that at the time of payment the right of subrogation was not intended to be exercised, and could not be exercised without injustice to others, no such right will be held to exist. (footnotes omitted) See also Chamness v. Chamness' Estate, 53 Ind.App. 225 , 101 N.E. 323 (1913)(an heir having a personal interest in estate may be entitled to be subrogated to right of creditor | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Chamness v. Chamness
neutral
2 sentences2000In no case can a person, claiming by way of subrogation against an estate, stand in a better position than the person whose rights he claims to be subrogated. wok ock [However], if the facts and circumstances show definitely that at the time of payment the right of subrogation was not intended to be exercised, and could not be exercised without injustice to others, no such right will be held to exist. (footnotes omitted) See also Chamness v. Chamness' Estate, 53 Ind.App. 225 , 101 N.E. 323 (1913)(an heir having a personal interest in estate may be entitled to be subrogated to right of creditor 2000In no case can a person, claiming by way of subrogation against an estate, stand in a better position than the person whose rights he claims to be subrogated. wok ock [However], if the facts and circumstances show definitely that at the time of payment the right of subrogation was not intended to be exercised, and could not be exercised without injustice to others, no such right will be held to exist. (footnotes omitted) See also Chamness v. Chamness' Estate, 53 Ind.App. 225 , 101 N.E. 323 (1913)(an heir having a personal interest in estate may be entitled to be subrogated to right of creditor | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority
green
1 sentence1980Const., Article X , Section 15 provides that: "The credit of the State shall not be given, pledged or loaned to any individual company, corporation or association, municipality or political subdivision of the State; nor shall the State become an owner or stockholder in, nor make donation by gift subscription to stock by tax or otherwise to any company, association or corporation." In the Application of Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Okl. 365 P.2d 345 (1961) the Court stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the syllabus that the apportionment of motor fuel excise taxes by the Legislature does not authori | 1 | 1980–1980 |
In Re Ashing's Estate
green
1 sentence1972Reith v. County of Mountrail, N.D., 104 N.W.2d 667 (1960) ; In re Ashing’s Estate, 250 Iowa 259 , 93 N.W.2d 587 (1958). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Reith v. County of Mountrail
neutral
1 sentence1972Reith v. County of Mountrail, N.D., 104 N.W.2d 667 (1960) ; In re Ashing’s Estate, 250 Iowa 259 , 93 N.W.2d 587 (1958). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State Board of Social Welfare v. Manly
green
1 sentence1972Reith v. County of Mountrail, N.D., 104 N.W.2d 667 (1960) ; In re Ashing’s Estate, 250 Iowa 259 , 93 N.W.2d 587 (1958). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Baker
green
2 sentences1971Home Owners’ Loan Corporation v. Baker, 299 Mass. 158 , 12 N.E.2d 99 [ 12 N.E.2d 199 ].” Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition. 1971Home Owners’ Loan Corporation v. Baker, 299 Mass. 158 , 12 N.E.2d 99 [ 12 N.E.2d 199 ].” Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Whyel v. Smith
green
2 sentences1971Subrogation has been defined as: “The substitution of one person in the. place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand or right, Whyel v. Smith, 101 Fla. 971 , 134 So.2d 552 [ 134 So. 552 ], 554; so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or securities. 1971Subrogation has been defined as: “The substitution of one person in the. place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand or right, Whyel v. Smith, 101 Fla. 971 , 134 So.2d 552 [ 134 So. 552 ], 554; so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or securities. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Boos v. Morgan
green
2 sentences1934In the case of Kennedy v. Eder (Ind. App.) 139 N. E. 372 , it is said: ‘‘The payment and satisfaction of a judgment put an end to it for all purposes and also extinguished the original debt or claim, except where the satisfaction was obtained wrongfully or fraudulently, in which case, on its being revoked or vacated, the judgment will again be in force.” See, also, Boss v. Morgan, 130 Ind. 305 , *602 30 N. E. 141 , 30 Am. 1934In the case of Kennedy v. Eder (Ind. App.) 139 N. E. 372 , it is said: ‘‘The payment and satisfaction of a judgment put an end to it for all purposes and also extinguished the original debt or claim, except where the satisfaction was obtained wrongfully or fraudulently, in which case, on its being revoked or vacated, the judgment will again be in force.” See, also, Boss v. Morgan, 130 Ind. 305 , *602 30 N. E. 141 , 30 Am. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Kennedy v. Eder
green
1 sentence1934In the case of Kennedy v. Eder (Ind. App.) 139 N. E. 372 , it is said: ‘‘The payment and satisfaction of a judgment put an end to it for all purposes and also extinguished the original debt or claim, except where the satisfaction was obtained wrongfully or fraudulently, in which case, on its being revoked or vacated, the judgment will again be in force.” See, also, Boss v. Morgan, 130 Ind. 305 , *602 30 N. E. 141 , 30 Am. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.