8 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1940–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Pajiangreen1 sentence2016See In re Cardin’s Estate, 1928 OK 562, ¶ 2 , 132 Okla. 286 , 270 P. 554, 555 (“[Creditor] did not present his claim to the administratrix within the four months time allowed by statute, but apparently was satisfied with his security.”); and In re Pajian, 785 F.3d 1161, 1163 (7th Cir. 2015) (“But while all creditors—secured and unsecured— must file a proof of claim in order to receive distributions, a secured creditor who fails to do so can still enforce its lien through a foreclosure action, even after the debtor receives a discharge.”). ¶ 15 The nature of rights and liabilities under a lette | 1 | 1 |
Cardin v. Farmers Nat. Bankgreen2 sentences2016See In re Cardin’s Estate, 1928 OK 562, ¶ 2 , 132 Okla. 286 , 270 P. 554, 555 (“[Creditor] did not present his claim to the administratrix within the four months time allowed by statute, but apparently was satisfied with his security.”); and In re Pajian, 785 F.3d 1161, 1163 (7th Cir. 2015) (“But while all creditors—secured and unsecured— must file a proof of claim in order to receive distributions, a secured creditor who fails to do so can still enforce its lien through a foreclosure action, even after the debtor receives a discharge.”). ¶ 15 The nature of rights and liabilities under a lette 2016See In re Cardin’s Estate, 1928 OK 562, ¶ 2 , 132 Okla. 286 , 270 P. 554, 555 (“[Creditor] did not present his claim to the administratrix within the four months time allowed by statute, but apparently was satisfied with his security.”); and In re Pajian, 785 F.3d 1161, 1163 (7th Cir. 2015) (“But while all creditors—secured and unsecured— must file a proof of claim in order to receive distributions, a secured creditor who fails to do so can still enforce its lien through a foreclosure action, even after the debtor receives a discharge.”). ¶ 15 The nature of rights and liabilities under a lette | 1 | 1 |
Cobb v. Stategreen2 sentences1991See Cobb v. State, 773 P.2d 371 (Okl.Cr. 1989); Bickerstaff v. State, 669 P.2d 778 (Okl.Cr. 1983); and Clonce v. State, 588 P.2d 584 (Okl.Cr. 1978). 1991See Cobb v. State, 773 P.2d 371 (Okl.Cr.1989); Bickerstaff v. State, 669 P.2d 778 (Okl.Cr.1983); and Clonce v. State, 588 P.2d 584 (Okl.Cr.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Peabody Galion Corp. v. Workmangreen1 sentence1990See Peabody Galion Corp. v. Workman, Okl., 643 P.2d 312, 314-315 (1982). [11] When facts at variance with those assumed in a physician's medical letter-report or deposition are revealed, it devolves upon the party opposing the proof to challenge the probative value of the opinion for assumption of an inaccurate or incomplete history or for want of some critical fact. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reliable Electric Co., Inc. v. Olson Construction Company
green
2 sentences1992Individual debtors are not discharged from any debt: * * * * * * (3) neither listed nor scheduled under Section 521(1) of this title, [2] with the name, if known to the debtor, of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, in time to permit (A) if such debt is not of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing; or (B) if such debt is of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim and time 1992Individual debtors are not discharged from any debt: [[Image here]] (3) neither listed nor scheduled under Section 521(1) of this title, 2 with the name, if known to the debtor, of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, in time to permit— (A) if such debt is not of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing; or (B) if such debt is of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim and time | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Stern v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2013The Supreme Court has concluded that one type of these listed proceedings— “counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate”— should not necessarily have been included on this list because an action is not in fact a core proceeding when it involves “a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim.” Stern, 131 S.Ct. at 2622 . 2013He explained that the question presented there was a “narrow” one; that Congress had violated Article III of the Constitution “in one isolated respect”; and that removal of state law counterclaims that are not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim from the definition of core does not “meaningfully” change “the division of labor in the current statute.” Id. at 2620 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Addington v. Texas
green
2 sentences1996The standard of proof The standard of proof is a matter of due process and serves “to allocate the risk of error between the litigants and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979). 1996The standard of proof The standard of proof is a matter of due process and serves “to allocate the risk of error between the litigants and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Clonce v. State
green
2 sentences1991See Cobb v. State, 773 P.2d 371 (Okl.Cr. 1989); Bickerstaff v. State, 669 P.2d 778 (Okl.Cr. 1983); and Clonce v. State, 588 P.2d 584 (Okl.Cr. 1978). 1991See Cobb v. State, 773 P.2d 371 (Okl.Cr.1989); Bickerstaff v. State, 669 P.2d 778 (Okl.Cr.1983); and Clonce v. State, 588 P.2d 584 (Okl.Cr.1978). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Bickerstaff v. State
green
2 sentences1991See Cobb v. State, 773 P.2d 371 (Okl.Cr. 1989); Bickerstaff v. State, 669 P.2d 778 (Okl.Cr. 1983); and Clonce v. State, 588 P.2d 584 (Okl.Cr. 1978). 1991See Cobb v. State, 773 P.2d 371 (Okl.Cr.1989); Bickerstaff v. State, 669 P.2d 778 (Okl.Cr.1983); and Clonce v. State, 588 P.2d 584 (Okl.Cr.1978). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Natlonal Life & Accident Ins. v. King
neutral
1 sentence1940Co. v. King (Miss.) 59 So. 807 . | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.