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 1920–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2023As the Court noted in Gilson , "the general rule requiring the State to elect which offense it will prosecute is not in force when separate acts are treated as one transaction and that separate acts of abuse are one transaction for purposes of election of offenses." Gilson, 2000 OK CR 14, ¶ 21 , 8 P.3d at 899 . ¶9 Appellant argues that this exception to the election rule does not apply in his case because it does not involve the same conduct, but rather underlying crimes with different actus reus elements. 2023As the Court noted in Gilson , "the general rule requiring the State to elect which offense it will prosecute is not in force when separate acts are treated as one transaction and that separate acts of abuse are one transaction for purposes of election of offenses." Gilson, 2000 OK CR 14, ¶ 21 , 8 P.3d at 899 . ¶9 Appellant argues that this exception to the election rule does not apply in his case because it does not involve the same conduct, but rather underlying crimes with different actus reus elements. | 1 | 2 |
Huddleston v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Gilson v. State , 2000 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 22-23 , 8 P.3d 883, 889-890 (applying election rule exception to acts of child abuse by treating separate acts as one transaction); Jones v. State , 1989 OK CR 66, ¶ 17 , 781 P.2d 326, 329 (finding that multiple acts of sexual abuse over three year period were part of same transaction as act constituting charged offense); Huddleston v. State , 1985 OK CR 12, ¶ 16 , 695 P.2d 8, 10-11 (holding exception to Cody's election rule occurs, "when a child of tender years is under the exclusive domination of one parent for a definite and certain period of time and sub 2023Gilson v. State , 2000 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 22-23 , 8 P.3d 883, 889-890 (applying election rule exception to acts of child abuse by treating separate acts as one transaction); Jones v. State , 1989 OK CR 66, ¶ 17 , 781 P.2d 326, 329 (finding that multiple acts of sexual abuse over three year period were part of same transaction as act constituting charged offense); Huddleston v. State , 1985 OK CR 12, ¶ 16 , 695 P.2d 8, 10-11 (holding exception to Cody's election rule occurs, "when a child of tender years is under the exclusive domination of one parent for a definite and certain period of time and sub | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Gilson v. State , 2000 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 22-23 , 8 P.3d 883, 889-890 (applying election rule exception to acts of child abuse by treating separate acts as one transaction); Jones v. State , 1989 OK CR 66, ¶ 17 , 781 P.2d 326, 329 (finding that multiple acts of sexual abuse over three year period were part of same transaction as act constituting charged offense); Huddleston v. State , 1985 OK CR 12, ¶ 16 , 695 P.2d 8, 10-11 (holding exception to Cody's election rule occurs, "when a child of tender years is under the exclusive domination of one parent for a definite and certain period of time and sub 2023Gilson v. State , 2000 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 22-23 , 8 P.3d 883, 889-890 (applying election rule exception to acts of child abuse by treating separate acts as one transaction); Jones v. State , 1989 OK CR 66, ¶ 17 , 781 P.2d 326, 329 (finding that multiple acts of sexual abuse over three year period were part of same transaction as act constituting charged offense); Huddleston v. State , 1985 OK CR 12, ¶ 16 , 695 P.2d 8, 10-11 (holding exception to Cody's election rule occurs, "when a child of tender years is under the exclusive domination of one parent for a definite and certain period of time and sub | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Estate of Bovaird
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 118 , 345 P.2d at 877 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re the Estate of Rettenmeyer
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 118 , 345 P.2d at 877 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Nashville Trust Co. v. Winters
green
2 sentences1960We have considered the other authorities cited by plaintiffs in C.J.S. and Nashville Trust Co. v. Winters, et al., 23 Tenn.App. 262 , 130 S.W.2d 152 , wherein the general rule of estoppel is quoted as to the effect that by accepting benefits a person may be estopped from questioning the existence, validity and effect of a contract, and that under the doctrine of election, the one *571 accepting benefits under a deed or will must adopt whole contents of the instrument. 1960We have considered the other authorities cited by plaintiffs in C.J.S. and Nashville Trust Co. v. Winters, et al., 23 Tenn.App. 262 , 130 S.W.2d 152 , wherein the general rule of estoppel is quoted as to the effect that by accepting benefits a person may be estopped from questioning the existence, validity and effect of a contract, and that under the doctrine of election, the one *571 accepting benefits under a deed or will must adopt whole contents of the instrument. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Harber v. Harber
green
2 sentences1955It may be added that the doctrine of election, as generally described in the foregoing paragraphs, applies to all instruments of donation,— to deeds, settlements, and the like, as well as , to wills, — although the cases involving it have most frequently arisen under wills.” And in Harber v. Harber, 158 Ga. 274 , 123 S.E. 114, 115 , 33 A.L.R. 598 , the court defines the doctrine of election as follows: “The doctrine of election is based upon the salutary principle, that ‘he who accepts a benefit under a deed or will must adopt the whole contents of the instrument, conforming to all its provisi 1955It may be added that the doctrine of election, as generally described in the foregoing paragraphs, applies to all instruments of donation,— to deeds, settlements, and the like, as well as , to wills, — although the cases involving it have most frequently arisen under wills.” And in Harber v. Harber, 158 Ga. 274 , 123 S.E. 114, 115 , 33 A.L.R. 598 , the court defines the doctrine of election as follows: “The doctrine of election is based upon the salutary principle, that ‘he who accepts a benefit under a deed or will must adopt the whole contents of the instrument, conforming to all its provisi | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Chickasha Motor Co. v. State Industrial Commission
neutral
2 sentences1940The contention cannot be upheld under the rule stated in Chickasha Motor Co. et al. v. State Industrial Commission, 174 Okla. 304 , 50 P. 2d 308 . 1940The contention cannot be upheld under the rule stated in Chickasha Motor Co. et al. v. State Industrial Commission, 174 Okla. 304 , 50 P. 2d 308 . | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Sweet v. Montpelier Savings Bank & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1929A party may pursue any number of consistent and concurrent remedies against different persons, until he obtains satisfaction from some of them.” See, also, Sweet v. Bank (Kan.) 77 Pac. 538 ; Union Central Life Ins. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Register v. Carmichael
neutral
2 sentences1920Held, the former suit did not constitute such an election as to bar the action instituted by the administrator.” In the case of Register v. Carmichael, 169 Ala. 588 , 53 So. 799 , also reported in 34 L. 1920Held, the former suit did not constitute such an election as to bar the action instituted by the administrator.” In the case of Register v. Carmichael, 169 Ala. 588 , 53 So. 799 , also reported in 34 L. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Thrall v. Thrall
neutral
2 sentences1920A. (N. S.) 309, it is said: “Instituting an equitable proceeding to settle the affairs of a partnership of which plaintiff claimed to be a member, does not, prior to the securing of some benefit therefrom, amount to an election which will bar an action at law to recover the contract price of plaintiff’s interest, which was alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant.” The principle enunciated in the case of Thrall v. Thrall, found in 60 Wis. 503 , 19 N. W. 353 , applies to the instant case. 1920A. (N. S.) 309, it is said: “Instituting an equitable proceeding to settle the affairs of a partnership of which plaintiff claimed to be a member, does not, prior to the securing of some benefit therefrom, amount to an election which will bar an action at law to recover the contract price of plaintiff’s interest, which was alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant.” The principle enunciated in the case of Thrall v. Thrall, found in 60 Wis. 503 , 19 N. W. 353 , applies to the instant case. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.