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 1992–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dyke v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences1997Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 , 568 n. 15, 107 S.Ct. 1410 , 1417 n. 15, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987); Groce v. Foster, Okl., 880 P.2d 902, 906 (1994); Dyke v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Okl., 861 P.2d 295, 298-299 (1993); Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hosp. 1997Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 , 568 n. 15, 107 S.Ct. 1410 , 1417 n. 15, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987); Groce v. Foster, Okl., 880 P.2d 902, 906 (1994); Dyke v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Okl., 861 P.2d 295, 298-299 (1993); Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hosp. | 2 | 2 |
Groce v. Fostergreen2 sentences1997Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 , 568 n. 15, 107 S.Ct. 1410 , 1417 n. 15, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987); Groce v. Foster, Okl., 880 P.2d 902, 906 (1994); Dyke v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Okl., 861 P.2d 295, 298-299 (1993); Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hosp. 1997Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 , 568 n. 15, 107 S.Ct. 1410 , 1417 n. 15, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987); Groce v. Foster, Okl., 880 P.2d 902, 906 (1994); Dyke v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Okl., 861 P.2d 295, 298-299 (1993); Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hosp. | 2 | 2 |
Willbros USA, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of Londongreen2 sentences2010See § 2012 ("if, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to the motion by the rules for summary judgment."), and Willbros USA, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 2009 OK CIV APP 90 , ¶ 7 n. 4, 220 P.3d 1166 , 1171 n. 4. 2010See § 2012 ("if, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to the motion by the rules for summary judgment."), and Willbros USA, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 2009 OK CIV APP 90 , ¶ 7 n. 4, 220 P.3d 1166 , 1171 n. 4. | 1 | 1 |
Assmann v. Fleminggreen1 sentence1999See also, Assmann v. Fleming, 159 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir.1947). | 1 | 1 |
Pryse Monument Co. v. District Court of Kay Countygreen1 sentence1993See Pryse Monument Co. v. District Court, Okl., 595 P.2d 435, 437-438 (1979). 6 .The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B) provide in pertinent part: " * * * If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by the rules for summary judgment. * * * ” (Emph | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Conley v. Gibson
red
2 sentences1997Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; * * * If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by the rules for summary judgment. * * *" (Emphasis added). "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless 1997Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; * * * If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by the rules for summary judgment. * * *" (Emphasis added). "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless | 3 | 1993–1997 |
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. Buell
green
2 sentences1997Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 , 568 n. 15, 107 S.Ct. 1410 , 1417 n. 15, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987); Groce v. Foster, Okl., 880 P.2d 902, 906 (1994); Dyke v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Okl., 861 P.2d 295, 298-299 (1993); Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hosp. 1997Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 , 568 n. 15, 107 S.Ct. 1410 , 1417 n. 15, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987); Groce v. Foster, Okl., 880 P.2d 902, 906 (1994); Dyke v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., Okl., 861 P.2d 295, 298-299 (1993); Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hosp. | 3 | 1993–1997 |
David Holt, as Personal Representative of the Estates of James W. Holt and Joan Holt, Deceased v. United States
green
2 sentences2004In Holt v. U.S., 46 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir.1995), the Circuit Court of Appeals noted that under Rule 12(b)(1), the federal counterpart to § 2012(B)(1), “a party may, go beyond allegations contained in the complaint and challenge the facts upon which subject matter- jurisdiction depends.” The Circuit Court also noted that under Rule 12(b)(1), the trial court “has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts”, and that “when reviewing a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction, a district court may not presume 2004In Holt v. U.S., 46 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir.1995), the Circuit Court of Appeals noted that under Rule 12(b)(1), the federal counterpart to § 2012(B)(1), "a party may go beyond allegations contained in the complaint and challenge the facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction depends." The Circuit Court also noted that under Rule 12(b)(1), the trial court "has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts", and that "when reviewing a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction, a district court may not presume th | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Washington v. State ex rel. Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2000Dept. of Corrections, 1996 OK 139, ¶ 7 , 915 P.2d 359 . 16 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Washington v. DEPT. OF CORRS.
neutral
1 sentence2000Dept. of Corrections, 1996 OK 139, ¶ 7 , 915 P.2d 359 . 16 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Pickens v. Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry
green
2 sentences1999If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by the rules for summary judgment. . . ." [12] 12 O.S.1991 Ch. 2, App., Rule 13. [13] Cf. Pickens v. Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry, 1997 OK 152, ¶ 7 , 951 P.2d 1079, 1082 . [14] Parker v. Board of Coun 1999If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by the rules for summary judgment. . . ." [12] 12 O.S.1991 Ch. 2, App., Rule 13. [13] Cf. Pickens v. Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry, 1997 OK 152, ¶ 7 , 951 P.2d 1079, 1082 . [14] Parker v. Board of Coun | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Parker v. Board of Com'rs of Okmulgee County
green
2 sentences1999If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by the rules for summary judgment. . . ." [12] 12 O.S.1991 Ch. 2, App., Rule 13. [13] Cf. Pickens v. Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry, 1997 OK 152, ¶ 7 , 951 P.2d 1079, 1082 . [14] Parker v. Board of Coun 1999If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by the rules for summary judgment. . . ." [12] 12 O.S.1991 Ch. 2, App., Rule 13. [13] Cf. Pickens v. Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry, 1997 OK 152, ¶ 7 , 951 P.2d 1079, 1082 . [14] Parker v. Board of Coun | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Silver v. Slusher
green
1 sentence1992The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B) provide in pertinent part: “ * * * If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by the rules for summary judgment. * * * ” (Emphasis added.) See in this connection, Silver v. Slusher, Okl., 770 P.2d 878 , 881 | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.