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 2 courts 2016–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mincey v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2019In Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S. Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), the Supreme Court rejected a categorical exception to the warrant requirement based on the existence of a possible homicide at a crime scene which, according to the State, presented an emergency situation demanding immediate action. 2019In Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S. Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), the Supreme Court rejected a categorical exception to the warrant requirement based on the existence of a possible homicide at a crime scene which, according to the State, presented an emergency situation demanding immediate action. | 2 | 4 |
eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LLgreen2 sentences2023Get Bak'd argues that this provision codifies the common law presumption of irreparable harm in trademark infringement cases, and that argument has merit. ¶14 In response, Releaf Labs argues that "most courts do not apply a categorical presumption of irreparable harm in trademark infringement cases." In particular, Releaf Labs relies on a patent infringement case, eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 1839 (2006) ("[A] plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction . . . must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at 2023Get Bak'd argues that this provision codifies the common law presumption of irreparable harm in trademark infringement cases, and that argument has merit. ¶14 In response, Releaf Labs argues that "most courts do not apply a categorical presumption of irreparable harm in trademark infringement cases." In particular, Releaf Labs relies on a patent infringement case, eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 1839 (2006) ("[A] plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction . . . must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at | 1 | 1 |
At&T Mobility LLC v. Concepciongreen1 sentence2016See ibid. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Atkins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2018In urging a categorical exception from the death penalty for those whom he describes as "severely mentally ill," Appellant compares his situation to mentally retarded inmates who are ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). 2018In urging a categorical exception from the death penalty for those whom he describes as "severely mentally ill," Appellant compares his situation to mentally retarded inmates who are ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Underwood v. State
green
2 sentences2018Underwood v. State , 2011 OK CR 12 , ¶ 69, 252 P.3d 221 , 248. 2018Underwood v. State , 2011 OK CR 12 , ¶ 69, 252 P.3d 221 , 248. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown
green
2 sentences2016Forest Hills disagrees, maintaining this case is controlled by Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, - U.S. --, 132 S.Ct., 1201 , 182 42 (2012), In Marmet, the United States Supreme Court held that a West Virginia statute prohibiting "predispute agreements to arbitrate personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes is a categorical rule prohibiting arbitration of a particular type of a claim, and that rule is contrary to the terms and coverage of the FAA." Id. at 1204 . 2016Forest Hills disagrees, maintaining this case is controlled by Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, - U.S. --, 132 S.Ct., 1201 , 182 42 (2012), In Marmet, the United States Supreme Court held that a West Virginia statute prohibiting "predispute agreements to arbitrate personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes is a categorical rule prohibiting arbitration of a particular type of a claim, and that rule is contrary to the terms and coverage of the FAA." Id. at 1204 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.
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.