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.
8 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Salinas v. Texasgreen2 sentences2017Salinas , 133 S.Ct. at 2180-81 . ¶39 Salinas has very little relevance to the issue before this Court, but what relevance it has appears to support Bosse's claim. 2017Salinas , 133 S.Ct. at 2180-81 . ¶39 Salinas has very little relevance to the issue before this Court, but what relevance it has appears to support Bosse's claim. | 2 | 4 |
United States v. Johngreen2 sentences2021In that regard, I agree fully with the majority that our test for Indian status must be identical to that used by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. ¶3 The Major Crimes Act is pre-emptive of state criminal jurisdiction " when it applies ...." United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 651 (1978) (emphasis added). 2021In that regard, I agree fully with the majority that our test for Indian status must be identical to that used by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. ¶3 The Major Crimes Act is pre-emptive of state criminal jurisdiction " when it applies ...." United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 651 (1978) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
BOSSE v. STATEgreen2 sentences2017In addressing Bosse’s claim of. cumulative error, the Opinion notes the Court had found only one error in previous propositions, and determined that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2017 OK CR 10 , ¶ 93, 400 P.3d 834 . 2017In addressing Bosse’s claim of. cumulative error, the Opinion notes the Court had found only one error in previous propositions, and determined that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2017 OK CR 10 , ¶ 93, 400 P.3d 834 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. State
green
2 sentences2015Most constitutional errors occurring during trial are subject to harmless error analysis, as they may be assessed, along with the evidence presented, for any prejudice to the defendant, Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 3 , 255 P.3d 425, 428 ; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 LEd.2d 705 (1967). 2015Most constitutional errors occurring during trial are subject to harmless error analysis, as they may be assessed, along with the evidence presented, for any prejudice to the defendant, Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 3 , 255 P.3d 425, 428 ; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 LEd.2d 705 (1967). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Chapman v. California
yellow
2 sentences2015Most constitutional errors occurring during trial are subject to harmless error analysis, as they may be assessed, along with the evidence presented, for any prejudice to the defendant, Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 3 , 255 P.3d 425, 428 ; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 LEd.2d 705 (1967). 2015Most constitutional errors occurring during trial are subject to harmless error analysis, as they may be assessed, along with the evidence presented, for any prejudice to the defendant, Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 3 , 255 P.3d 425, 428 ; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 LEd.2d 705 (1967). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.