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 1986–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sneed v. McDonnell Douglasgreen2 sentences2006Sneed v. McDonnell Douglas, 1999 OK 84, ¶ 9 , 991 P.2d 1001, 1004 (footnotes omitted, bracketed language in original). ¶ 7 Employer argues Claimant had two years from the date of her last hazardous exposure to file a workers’ compensation claim for any injuries to her thumbs. 85 O.S.2001 § 43. 2006Sneed v. McDonnell Douglas, 1999 OK 84, ¶ 9 , 991 P.2d 1001, 1004 (footnotes omitted, bracketed language in original). ¶ 7 Employer argues Claimant had two years from the date of her last hazardous exposure to file a workers’ compensation claim for any injuries to her thumbs. 85 O.S.2001 § 43. | 2 | 4 |
United States v. Thompsongreen1 sentence1993The common-law rule, exempting only the sovereign, is explained in United States v. Thompson, 989 U.S. 486 , 489, 25 L.Ed. 194, 195 (1879): "The common law fixed no time as to the bringing of action. | 1 | 1 |
Baccus v. Banksgreen2 sentences1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . 1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co.green2 sentences1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . 1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Tucker v. McCrorygreen1 sentence1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . | 1 | 1 |
McCarroll v. Doctors General Hospitalgreen1 sentence1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Landgraff v. Wagnergreen2 sentences1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . 1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Habron v. Epsteingreen1 sentence1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Uri v. Alaskagreen1 sentence1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Landgraff v. Wagnergreen1 sentence1986Baccus v. Banks, 199 Okl. 647 , 192 P.2d 683, 692 [1948]; Tucker v. McCrory, Okl., 266 P.2d 433, 434 [1954]; Woods v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 207 Okl. 490 , 251 P.2d 505, 509 [1952] and McCarroll v. Doctors General Hosp., Okl., 664 P.2d 382, 387 [1983]; see also, Landgraff v. Wagner, 546 P.2d 26 , 26 Ariz.App. 49 [1976], appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806 , 97 S.Ct. 40 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 [1977]. 11 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed
green
2 sentences2014We explained in Moth-ershed that there was no legislative intent to create a jurisdictional time limit in a particular rule for Bar disciplinary procedure (at ¶ 62, 264 P.3d at 1221 ), and herein we similarly note that there is no legislative language or intent indicated by the plain language in 34 O.S. § 9 to remove the Attorney General from the ballot title procedure by an untimely filing made by the Attorney General 26 . 2014We explained in Mothershed that there was no legislative intent to create a jurisdictional time limit in a particular rule for Bar disciplinary procedure (at ¶ 62, 264 P.3d at 1221 ), and herein we similarly note that there is no legislative language or intent indicated by the plain language in 34 O.S. § 9 to remove the Attorney General from the ballot title procedure by an untimely filing made by the Attorney General. 26 We note that School District No. 61, Payne County , supra , is consistent with Castro v. Keyes , 1992 OK 92 , 836 P.2d 1275 , where parties argued that a county board of equa | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Castro v. Keyes
neutral
2 sentences2014We explained in Mothershed that there was no legislative intent to create a jurisdictional time limit in a particular rule for Bar disciplinary procedure (at ¶ 62, 264 P.3d at 1221 ), and herein we similarly note that there is no legislative language or intent indicated by the plain language in 34 O.S. § 9 to remove the Attorney General from the ballot title procedure by an untimely filing made by the Attorney General. 26 We note that School District No. 61, Payne County , supra , is consistent with Castro v. Keyes , 1992 OK 92 , 836 P.2d 1275 , where parties argued that a county board of equa 2014We explained in Mothershed that there was no legislative intent to create a jurisdictional time limit in a particular rule for Bar disciplinary procedure (at ¶ 62, 264 P.3d at 1221 ), and herein we similarly note that there is no legislative language or intent indicated by the plain language in 34 O.S. § 9 to remove the Attorney General from the ballot title procedure by an untimely filing made by the Attorney General. 26 We note that School District No. 61, Payne County , supra , is consistent with Castro v. Keyes , 1992 OK 92 , 836 P.2d 1275 , where parties argued that a county board of equa | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Smedley v. State Industrial Court
green
2 sentences2007Court, 1977 OK 55, ¶ 12 , 562 P.2d 847 , construing an earlier version of 85 O.S. 43 , 15 the Court found that: ... [Alfter the limitation period ... has run, and in the absence of evidence clearly showing a contrary intent, the furnishing of medical treatment is a conscious recognition of liability ... and tolls or waives the limitation period ... with the limitation period beginning to run from the last date of such a furnishing. ... 2007Court, 1977 OK 55, ¶ 12 , 562 P.2d 847 , construing an earlier version of 85 O.S. 43 , 15 the Court found that: ... [Alfter the limitation period ... has run, and in the absence of evidence clearly showing a contrary intent, the furnishing of medical treatment is a conscious recognition of liability ... and tolls or waives the limitation period ... with the limitation period beginning to run from the last date of such a furnishing. ... | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1993The pertinent terms of 22 O.S. 1988 § 152A, the statute in effect when this action was brought, are: "Prosecutions for the crimes of bribery, embezzlement of public money, bonds, securities, assets or property of ... any ... municipality ... or of any misappropriation of public money, bonds, securities, assets or property of ... any .. . municipality ... falsification of public records of ... any ... municipality ... and conspiracy to defraud ... any ... municipality .. . in any manner or for any purpose shall be commenced within seven (7) years after the discovery of the crime. ..." [Emphasis 1993The pertinent terms of 22 O.S. 1988 § 152A, the statute in effect when this action was brought, are: "Prosecutions for the crimes of bribery, embezzlement of public money, bonds, securities, assets or property of ... any ... municipality ... or of any misappropriation of public money, bonds, securities, assets or property of ... any .. . municipality ... falsification of public records of ... any ... municipality ... and conspiracy to defraud ... any ... municipality .. . in any manner or for any purpose shall be commenced within seven (7) years after the discovery of the crime. ..." [Emphasis | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.