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 4 courts 1996–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2011See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976): More precisely, our prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and admin 2011See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976): More precisely, our prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and admin | 2 | 8 |
Goldberg v. Kellygreen2 sentences2011See e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S. [254] at 263-271, 90 S.Ct. [1011] at 1018-1022 [ 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970)]. [emphasis added]. ¶ 22 The state's interest must be balanced against the risk of unconstitutionally depriving a property owner of an opportunity to protect his interest. 2011See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976): More precisely, our prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and admin | 1 | 2 |
Daffin v. STATE EX REL. OKL. DEPT. OF MINESgreen1 sentence2018Daffin , 2011 OK 22 at ¶ 21 (quoting Mathews , 424 U.S. at 334-35 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Board of Regents ex rel. Campus Disciplinary Council v. Lucas
green
2 sentences2016Bd. of Regents of The Univ. of Okla. v. Lucas, 2013 OK 14, ¶ 29 , 297 P.3d 378 , (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-85 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). 2016Bd. of Regents of The Univ. of Okla. v. Lucas, 2013 OK 14, ¶ 29 , 297 P.3d 378 , (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-85 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Stewart v. Rood
green
1 sentence1996In Eldridge , the Supreme Court held that the identification of the specific dictates of due process in any particular instance requires "consideration of three distinct factors" ( 424 U.S. at 335 ): 1. "[T]he private interest that will be affected by the official action;" 2. "[T]he risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;" and 3. "[T]he Government's interest including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedura | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.