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 1971–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stouffer v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Stouffer v. State, 2006 OK CR 46, ¶ 60 , 147 P.3d 245 , 263 where we said: The admission of this evidence, as with all evidence, is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. 2008See Stouffer v. State, 2006 OK CR 46, ¶ 60 , 147 P.3d 245 , 263 where we said: The admission of this evidence, as with all evidence, is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 1 |
Kish v. City of Oklahoma Citygreen1 sentence1995The exceptions to liability are now exclusively enumerated in § 155. “[Statutory exceptions should be strictly construed to the end that the exception does not ‘devour’ the general policy which the law, in this case the Act, embodies.” Kish v. City of Oklahoma City, 859 P.2d 1131, 1133 (Okla.Ct.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sussman v. District Court of Oklahoma County
green
2 sentences1972In Sussman v. District Court of Oklahoma County, Okl.Cr., 455 P.2d 724 , we stated: “At the same time, jeopardy is not regarded as having come to an end so as to bar a second trial in those cases where unforeseeable circumstances arise during the first trial, such as the failure of the jury to agree on a verdict; or, when the first trial is set aside on appeal, which is usually at defendant’s request.” (Emphasis added) We, therefore, find this proposition to be without merit. 1972In Sussman v. District Court of Oklahoma County, Okl.Cr., 455 P.2d 724 , we stated: “At the same time, jeopardy is not regarded as having come to an end so as to bar a second trial in those cases where unforseeable circumstances arise during the first trial, such as the failure of the jury to agree on a verdict; or, when the first trial is set aside, on appeal, which is usually at defendant’s request.” (Emphasis Added) The defendant next complains that the prosecuting attorney made an improper argument to the jury by saying that the State’s evidence was uncontradicted, at the same time, pointi | 3 | 1971–1972 |
Gibson v. Copeland
green
2 sentences2017However, with regard to the gift shop, he testified “the only thing I have right now in regard to the Blue Rooster is-1 have seen one receipt turned in to the CENA grant for the senior citizens center that had a Blue -Rooster notation on the top.” He testified that no search warrant or other order allowing seizure of property has been issued, apparently because the Town is cooperating with the investigation, and when directly questioned whether “part of the investigation pertain[s] to the fact, that some of the money that may have been embezzled — allegedly embezzled were used to purchase item 2017However, with regard to the gift shop, he testified “the only thing I have right now in regard to the Blue Rooster is-1 have seen one receipt turned in to the CENA grant for the senior citizens center that had a Blue -Rooster notation on the top.” He testified that no search warrant or other order allowing seizure of property has been issued, apparently because the Town is cooperating with the investigation, and when directly questioned whether “part of the investigation pertain[s] to the fact, that some of the money that may have been embezzled — allegedly embezzled were used to purchase item | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Womack v. City of Oklahoma City
green
1 sentence2017However, with regard to the gift shop, he testified “the only thing I have right now in regard to the Blue Rooster is-1 have seen one receipt turned in to the CENA grant for the senior citizens center that had a Blue -Rooster notation on the top.” He testified that no search warrant or other order allowing seizure of property has been issued, apparently because the Town is cooperating with the investigation, and when directly questioned whether “part of the investigation pertain[s] to the fact, that some of the money that may have been embezzled — allegedly embezzled were used to purchase item | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Driver v. State
green
1 sentence1985Driver v. State, 634 P.2d 760 (Okl.Cr.1981), and at the end of the hearing, he told the trial court that he had fully understood the questions that had been asked, and that his answers had been freely and voluntarily given. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.