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 1932–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis Oil Co. v. Cloudgreen2 sentences2019L.L.C. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed.2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 , 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklah 2019L.L.C. , ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14, 18-19 , 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklaho | 2 | 2 |
Miller v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2019L.L.C. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed.2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 , 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklah 2019L.L.C. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed.2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 , 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklah | 2 | 2 |
Stallings v. Oklahoma Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences2019L.L.C. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed.2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 , 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklah 2019L.L.C. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed.2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 , 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklah | 2 | 2 |
Tulsa Lead & Zinc Co. v. Acarygreen2 sentences1932Skelly Oil Company v. Standley, 148 Okla. 77 , 297 P. 235 ; Union Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Evans, 153 Okla. 100 , 5 P. (2d) 155 ; Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Bayless, 154 Okla. 194 , 7 P. (2d) 411 ; Patrick & Tillman v. Watkins, 154 Okla. 232 , 7 P. (2d) 414 ; Tulsa Lead & Zinc Co. v. Acary, 154 Okla. 205 , 7 P. (2d) 417 . 1932Skelly Oil Company v. Standley, 148 Okla. 77 , 297 P. 235 ; Union Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Evans, 153 Okla. 100 , 5 P. (2d) 155 ; Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Bayless, 154 Okla. 194 , 7 P. (2d) 411 ; Patrick & Tillman v. Watkins, 154 Okla. 232 , 7 P. (2d) 414 ; Tulsa Lead & Zinc Co. v. Acary, 154 Okla. 205 , 7 P. (2d) 417 . | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2011T97 In Abshier v. State, 2001 OK CR 13 , 28 P.3d 579 , overruled in part on other grounds, Jones v. State, 2006 OK CR 17, ¶ 12 , 134 P.3d 150, 155, n. 14 , we rejected a claim similar to the one brought in the instant appeal. 2011T97 In Abshier v. State, 2001 OK CR 13 , 28 P.3d 579 , overruled in part on other grounds, Jones v. State, 2006 OK CR 17, ¶ 12 , 134 P.3d 150, 155, n. 14 , we rejected a claim similar to the one brought in the instant appeal. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019L.L.C. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed.2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 , 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklah 2019L.L.C. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed.2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 , 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklah | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Carlson v. Green
green
2 sentences2019L.L.C. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed.2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 , 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklah 2019L.L.C. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed.2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 , 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklah | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Patrick & Tillman v. Matkin
green
2 sentences1939As was said in Patrick & Tillman v. Matkin, 154 Okla. 232 , 7 P. 2d 414 , the filing of a stipulation and receipt on Form 7, whether approved or not, is a substitute for the original claim; if the claim is filed, the State Industrial'Commission thereafter has a continuing jurisdiction to enter an award for temporary total, permanent partial and further permanent disability on a change of condition on account of the accidental injury sustained, limited only by the restrictions contained in the amendment of chapter 29, S. L. 1933, supra. As the substitute for the claim is the filing of stipulati 1939As was said in Patrick & Tillman v. Matkin, 154 Okla. 232 , 7 P. 2d 414 , the filing of a stipulation and receipt on Form 7, whether approved or not, is a substitute for the original claim; if the claim is filed, the State Industrial'Commission thereafter has a continuing jurisdiction to enter an award for temporary total, permanent partial and further permanent disability on a change of condition on account of the accidental injury sustained, limited only by the restrictions contained in the amendment of chapter 29, S. L. 1933, supra. As the substitute for the claim is the filing of stipulati | 2 | 1932–1939 |
Union Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Evans
neutral
2 sentences1932If disapproved, it is a substitute for an original claim and becomes the basis for a hearing to determine extent qf disability.” In Union Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Evans, 153 Okla. 100 , 5 P. (2d) 155 , the memorandum agreement, and stipulation entered into by the parties after the 'injury, and approved by the Commission, was held to be a substitute for a claim for compensation. 1932If disapproved, it is a substitute for an original claim and becomes the basis for a hearing to determine extent qf disability.” In Union Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Evans, 153 Okla. 100 , 5 P. (2d) 155 , the memorandum agreement, and stipulation entered into by the parties after the 'injury, and approved by the Commission, was held to be a substitute for a claim for compensation. | 2 | 1932–1932 |
Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Bayless
neutral
2 sentences1932Skelly Oil Company v. Standley, 148 Okla. 77 , 297 P. 235 ; Union Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Evans, 153 Okla. 100 , 5 P. (2d) 155 ; Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Bayless, 154 Okla. 194 , 7 P. (2d) 411 ; Patrick & Tillman v. Watkins, 154 Okla. 232 , 7 P. (2d) 414 ; Tulsa Lead & Zinc Co. v. Acary, 154 Okla. 205 , 7 P. (2d) 417 . 1932Skelly Oil Company v. Standley, 148 Okla. 77 , 297 P. 235 ; Union Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Evans, 153 Okla. 100 , 5 P. (2d) 155 ; Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Bayless, 154 Okla. 194 , 7 P. (2d) 411 ; Patrick & Tillman v. Watkins, 154 Okla. 232 , 7 P. (2d) 414 ; Tulsa Lead & Zinc Co. v. Acary, 154 Okla. 205 , 7 P. (2d) 417 . | 2 | 1932–1932 |
Skelly Oil Co. v. Standley
green
2 sentences1932Skelly Oil Company v. Standley, 148 Okla. 77 , 297 P. 235 ; Union Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Evans, 153 Okla. 100 , 5 P. (2d) 155 ; Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Bayless, 154 Okla. 194 , 7 P. (2d) 411 ; Patrick & Tillman v. Watkins, 154 Okla. 232 , 7 P. (2d) 414 ; Tulsa Lead & Zinc Co. v. Acary, 154 Okla. 205 , 7 P. (2d) 417 . 1932Skelly Oil Company v. Standley, 148 Okla. 77 , 297 P. 235 ; Union Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Evans, 153 Okla. 100 , 5 P. (2d) 155 ; Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Bayless, 154 Okla. 194 , 7 P. (2d) 411 ; Patrick & Tillman v. Watkins, 154 Okla. 232 , 7 P. (2d) 414 ; Tulsa Lead & Zinc Co. v. Acary, 154 Okla. 205 , 7 P. (2d) 417 . | 2 | 1932–1932 |
Miranda v. Selig
neutral
1 sentence2019L.L.C. , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 506 , 199 L.Ed.2d 386 (2017) (discussing capped damages, substitute remedy ( quid pro quo ), and the Court's opinion in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59 , 98 S.Ct. 2620 , 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), for the proposition that a person has no property or vested interest in any rule of the common law), Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14 , 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 1468 , 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (discussion of Congress providing an alternative remedy as a substitute for a claim based upon deprivation of a constitutional right), Stallings v. Oklah | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Abshier v. State
green
2 sentences2011T97 In Abshier v. State, 2001 OK CR 13 , 28 P.3d 579 , overruled in part on other grounds, Jones v. State, 2006 OK CR 17, ¶ 12 , 134 P.3d 150, 155, n. 14 , we rejected a claim similar to the one brought in the instant appeal. 2011T97 In Abshier v. State, 2001 OK CR 13 , 28 P.3d 579 , overruled in part on other grounds, Jones v. State, 2006 OK CR 17, ¶ 12 , 134 P.3d 150, 155, n. 14 , we rejected a claim similar to the one brought in the instant appeal. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ray v. State
neutral
1 sentence1975In the recent case of Ray v. State, Okl.Cr., 516 P.2d 549 , this Court held that the trial court committed reversible error in submitting the above instruction to the jury when the defendant had submitted a substitute instruction requesting that the jury assess punishment. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Hales v. Oklahoma Producing & Refining Co.
neutral
2 sentences1932To reverse the award made by the State Industrial Commission, the petitioners rely upon Hales v. Oklahoma Producing & Refining Company of America, 109 Okla. 286 , 232 P. 42 ; Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy, 102 Okla. 207 , 228 P. 1100 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt, 146 Okla. 105 , 293 P. 1038 ; Velie Mines Corporation v. Rogers, 150 Okla. 185 , 1 P. (2d) 353 ; and W. 1932To reverse the award made by the State Industrial Commission, the petitioners rely upon Hales v. Oklahoma Producing & Refining Company of America, 109 Okla. 286 , 232 P. 42 ; Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy, 102 Okla. 207 , 228 P. 1100 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt, 146 Okla. 105 , 293 P. 1038 ; Velie Mines Corporation v. Rogers, 150 Okla. 185 , 1 P. (2d) 353 ; and W. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Steffens Ice Cream Co. v. Jarvis
green
2 sentences1932See, also, Tulsa Lead & Zinc Co. v. Acary, 154 Okla. 205 , 7 P. (2d) 417 ; Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Bayless, 154 Okla. 194 , 7 P. (2d) 411 , and Steffins Ice Cream Co. v. Jarvis, 132 Okla. 300 , 270 P. 1103 . 1932See, also, Tulsa Lead & Zinc Co. v. Acary, 154 Okla. 205 , 7 P. (2d) 417 ; Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Bayless, 154 Okla. 194 , 7 P. (2d) 411 , and Steffins Ice Cream Co. v. Jarvis, 132 Okla. 300 , 270 P. 1103 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt
green
2 sentences1932To reverse the award made by the State Industrial Commission, the petitioners rely upon Hales v. Oklahoma Producing & Refining Company of America, 109 Okla. 286 , 232 P. 42 ; Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy, 102 Okla. 207 , 228 P. 1100 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt, 146 Okla. 105 , 293 P. 1038 ; Velie Mines Corporation v. Rogers, 150 Okla. 185 , 1 P. (2d) 353 ; and W. 1932To reverse the award made by the State Industrial Commission, the petitioners rely upon Hales v. Oklahoma Producing & Refining Company of America, 109 Okla. 286 , 232 P. 42 ; Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy, 102 Okla. 207 , 228 P. 1100 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt, 146 Okla. 105 , 293 P. 1038 ; Velie Mines Corporation v. Rogers, 150 Okla. 185 , 1 P. (2d) 353 ; and W. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy
neutral
2 sentences1932To reverse the award made by the State Industrial Commission, the petitioners rely upon Hales v. Oklahoma Producing & Refining Company of America, 109 Okla. 286 , 232 P. 42 ; Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy, 102 Okla. 207 , 228 P. 1100 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt, 146 Okla. 105 , 293 P. 1038 ; Velie Mines Corporation v. Rogers, 150 Okla. 185 , 1 P. (2d) 353 ; and W. 1932To reverse the award made by the State Industrial Commission, the petitioners rely upon Hales v. Oklahoma Producing & Refining Company of America, 109 Okla. 286 , 232 P. 42 ; Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy, 102 Okla. 207 , 228 P. 1100 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt, 146 Okla. 105 , 293 P. 1038 ; Velie Mines Corporation v. Rogers, 150 Okla. 185 , 1 P. (2d) 353 ; and W. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Velie Mines Corp. v. Rogers
neutral
2 sentences1932To reverse the award made by the State Industrial Commission, the petitioners rely upon Hales v. Oklahoma Producing & Refining Company of America, 109 Okla. 286 , 232 P. 42 ; Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy, 102 Okla. 207 , 228 P. 1100 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt, 146 Okla. 105 , 293 P. 1038 ; Velie Mines Corporation v. Rogers, 150 Okla. 185 , 1 P. (2d) 353 ; and W. 1932To reverse the award made by the State Industrial Commission, the petitioners rely upon Hales v. Oklahoma Producing & Refining Company of America, 109 Okla. 286 , 232 P. 42 ; Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy, 102 Okla. 207 , 228 P. 1100 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt, 146 Okla. 105 , 293 P. 1038 ; Velie Mines Corporation v. Rogers, 150 Okla. 185 , 1 P. (2d) 353 ; and W. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.