8 Oklahoma opinions name it 4 courts 1943–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Malicoat v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Petitioner asserts that the protocol by which Respondent intends to execute him will unlawfully use a benzodiazepine rather than an ultra-short acting barbiturate. 138 This Court has clearly established that the proper method to challenge the execution protocol is to file an application for post-conviction relief Malicoat v. State, 2006 OK CR 25, 13 , 137 P.8d 1234, 1285; Lockett v. State, 2014 OK CR 3 , 1 8, 829 P.3d 755 , 760 (Lumpkin, J., Specially Concurring). 2015Malicoat v. State , 2006 OK CR 25, ¶ 3, 137 P.3d 1234, 1235; Lockett v. State , 2014 OK CR 3, ¶ 8, 329 P.3d 755, 760 (Lumpkin, J., Specially Concurring). | 1 | 2 |
LOCKETT v. STATEgreen2 sentences2015Petitioner asserts that the protocol by which Respondent intends to execute him will unlawfully use a benzodiazepine rather than an ultra-short acting barbiturate. 138 This Court has clearly established that the proper method to challenge the execution protocol is to file an application for post-conviction relief Malicoat v. State, 2006 OK CR 25, 13 , 137 P.8d 1234, 1285; Lockett v. State, 2014 OK CR 3 , 1 8, 829 P.3d 755 , 760 (Lumpkin, J., Specially Concurring). 2015Malicoat v. State , 2006 OK CR 25, ¶ 3, 137 P.3d 1234, 1235; Lockett v. State , 2014 OK CR 3, ¶ 8, 329 P.3d 755, 760 (Lumpkin, J., Specially Concurring). | 1 | 2 |
Fred A. ZUNIGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMFAC FOODS, INC., D/B/A Wilhelm Foods, Inc., Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences1984Zuniga v. AMFAC Foods, Inc., 580 F.2d 380, 383-84 (10th Cir.1978). 1984Zuniga v. AMFAC Foods, Inc., 580 F.2d 380, 383-84 (10th Cir.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Darnellgreen1 sentence1974“By enacting Sec. 165a, supra, the Legislature, in our opinion, clearly indicated that it intended that the matter of the eligibility of a candidate for an office be first considered by the Election Board with which the candidate filed his notification and declaration and not by the courts; that an objection or protest to such notification and declaration be filed in all instances and that a hearing thereon be held at an early date and before an election is held.” In Murphy v. Darnell, Okl., 268 P.2d 860, 861 (1954) this Court held: “ * * * The exclusive method to challenge, question or object | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Myers v. State
green
2 sentences2005We should follow the method of analysis set out in our recent case of Myers v. State, 2005 OK CR 22 , 130 P.3d 262 , 2005 WL 3334712 and not just suppose there is error that does not exist in this record. 2005We should follow the method of analysis set out in our recent case of Myers v. State, 2005 OK CR 22 , 130 P.3d 262 , 2005 WL 3334712 and not just suppose there is error that does not exist in this record. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wickersham v. State Election Board
green
1 sentence2001Id. (citations omitted). ¶ 7 Rogers then concluded: The exclusive method to challenge, question or object to the" legality or regularity of a notification and declaration" is provided by [the statute in effect at that time].The action of the County Election Board in placing the applicant's name on the ballot as a candidate for the office is in the nature of a judgment of that body in its semi-judicial capacity and that judgment cannot be collaterally attacked. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
List v. Anchor Paint Manufacturing Co.
green
1 sentence1997In its analysis, the court must insure that it ‘does not isolate the legislative remedy from the public policy goal, and does not consider the latter in a vacuum.’ We approve this method of analysis and will use it here.” List, 910 P.2d at 1014 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Excise Board of Cheek County v. Gulf Pipe Line Co.
neutral
2 sentences1943In Excise Board of Creek County v. *469 Gulf Pipe Line Co., 156 Okla. 103 , 9 P. 2d 460 , it is held that the proper method to test the sufficiency of the allegations of a protest authorized by 68 O. 1943In Excise Board of Creek County v. *469 Gulf Pipe Line Co., 156 Okla. 103 , 9 P. 2d 460 , it is held that the proper method to test the sufficiency of the allegations of a protest authorized by 68 O. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
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.