Taylor defense (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

Taylor defense in Oklahoma

8 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2019 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Washington v. Texasgreen
scotus · 1967 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him fro

2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him fro

11
United States v. Noblesgreen
scotus · 1975 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him fro

2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him fro

11
Nealis v. Bairdgreen
okla · 1999 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017"Issue preclusion prevents relitigation of facts and issues actually litigated and necessarily determined in an earlier proceeding . . . ." Nealis v. Baird , 1999 OK 98, ¶ 51, 996 P.2d 438.

2017"Issue preclusion prevents relitigation of facts and issues actually litigated and necessarily determined in an earlier proceeding . . . ." Nealis v. Baird , 1999 OK 98, ¶ 51, 996 P.2d 438.

11
A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. the Employers' Workers' Compensation Ass'ngreen
okla · 1997 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999See A-Plus, 1997 OK 37, ¶ 22 , 936 P.2d at 927 . 8 CONCLUSION ¶ 25 Questions of fact remain concerning whether Taylor’s claim is time-barred.

1999See A-Plus, 1997 OK 37, ¶ 22 , 936 P.2d at 927 . 8 CONCLUSION ¶ 25 Questions of fact remain concerning whether Taylor’s claim is time-barred.

11
Doyle v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995See also 21 O.S. 1991 , § 1431. [92] Williams, 807 P.2d at 273 . [93] On October 29, 1990, this Court granted Taylor's motion to file his supplemental proposition of error. [94] See Doyle v. State, 785 P.2d 317, 325 (Okl.Cr. 1989). [95] The appeal record does not contain a transcript of the post-examination competency hearing.

1995See Doyle v. State, 785 P.2d 317, 325 (Okl.Cr.1989). .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Malone v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2013
2 sentences

2018Malone, 2013 OK CR 1, ¶ 16 , 293 P.3d at 207 . ¶16 As discussed in Proposition 1, supra , the district court did not err in denying Taylor's motion to dismiss because there was no violation of his right to counsel during the custodial interrogation.

2018Malone, 2013 OK CR 1, ¶ 16 , 293 P.3d at 207 . ¶16 As discussed in Proposition 1, supra , the district court did not err in denying Taylor's motion to dismiss because there was no violation of his right to counsel during the custodial interrogation.

22018–2018
Wood v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1998
2 sentences

1999Wood v. State, 1998 OK CR 19, ¶ 40 , 959 P.2d 1, 11 .

1999Wood v. State, 1998 OK CR 19, ¶ 40 , 959 P.2d 1, 11 .

21998–1999
Taylor v. Illinois green
scotus · 1988
2 sentences

2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13, 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him fro

2019Ultimately, the Court concluded that barring Taylor's defense witness was an acceptable sanction under the circumstances, because the Sixth Amendment "does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system." Id. at 412-13 , 108 S.Ct. at 655 (quoting United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2171 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). ¶24 As Appellant claims the trial court's refusal to accommodate his situation to his satisfaction was tantamount to denying him the right to present a defense, he must show (1) that the court prevented him

12019–2019
In Re Estate of Crowell v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Cleveland green
okla · 2010
2 sentences

2017However, the Supreme Court's reliance on federal law in Washington suggests it would follow Farmer as well. ¶26 Further, in Estate of Crowell v. Board of County Commissioners , 2010 OK 5, 237 P.3d 134, the Oklahoma Supreme Court applied the Farmer test to an Eighth Amendment claim filed on behalf of a prisoner who died while incarcerated in a county jail.

2017However, the Supreme Court's reliance on federal law in Washington suggests it would follow Farmer as well. ¶26 Further, in Estate of Crowell v. Board of County Commissioners , 2010 OK 5 , 237 P.3d 134 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court applied the Farmer test to an Eighth Amendment claim filed on behalf of a prisoner who died while incarcerated in a county jail.

12017–2017
Estate of Crowell Ex Rel. Boen v. Board of County Commissioners green
okla · 2010
2 sentences

2017However, the Supreme Court's reliance on federal law in Washington suggests it would follow Farmer as well. ¶26 Further, in Estate of Crowell v. Board of County Commissioners , 2010 OK 5, 237 P.3d 134, the Oklahoma Supreme Court applied the Farmer test to an Eighth Amendment claim filed on behalf of a prisoner who died while incarcerated in a county jail.

2017However, the Supreme Court's reliance on federal law in Washington suggests it would follow Farmer as well. ¶26 Further, in Estate of Crowell v. Board of County Commissioners , 2010 OK 5 , 237 P.3d 134 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court applied the Farmer test to an Eighth Amendment claim filed on behalf of a prisoner who died while incarcerated in a county jail.

12017–2017
PERRY v. CITY OF NORMAN green
okla · 2014
2 sentences

2017Neither aspect of this claim is precluded by the holding in Perry v. City of Norman , 2014 OK 119, 341 P.3d 689.

2017Neither aspect of this claim is precluded by the holding in Perry v. City of Norman , 2014 OK 119, 341 P.3d 689.

12017–2017

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.10 (3) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 39 (1976–2026) OH 38 (1999–2025) GA 36 (1914–2025) CA 35 (1969–2025) IL 33 (1867–2026) FL 32 (1961–2022) AL 21 (1988–2025) IN 21 (1981–2024) PA 21 (1944–2026) MO 20 (1981–2019) NY 17 (1979–2025) MD 13 (1995–2021) DE 12 (2003–2023) VA 12 (1988–2020) WI 11 (2004–2024) IA 11 (1996–2024) WA 10 (1911–2025) KY 10 (1957–2026) MI 10 (1970–2023) MS 9 (1998–2026) CO 9 (1994–2024) KS 9 (2004–2024) OK 8 (1995–2019) LA 8 (1975–2022) DC 8 (1991–2011) UT 8 (1995–2024) AZ 7 (2008–2026) SC 5 (2007–2024) NV 5 (2020–2024) WY 5 (2000–2025) AR 4 (1998–2015) HI 4 (2007–2023) ID 4 (2017–2019) NC 4 (2006–2026) MT 4 (1998–2009) CT 3 (2011–2017) WV 3 (1981–2024) AK 3 (1977–2017) MA 3 (1976–2008) RI 2 (1987–2023) TN 2 (2010–2013) ME 2 (1983–2010) NM 2 (1994–1995) MN 2 (2017–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check