three part test in Oklahoma

1992Later, in Ake v. State, 778 P.2d 460 , 464 n. 1 (Okl.Cr. 1989), this Court noted that the ruling enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ake v. Oklahoma dealt specifically with psychiatric experts, but did not preclude the possibility that the principles of Ake should be extended to include any expert which is "necessary for an adequate defense." To decide whether the State shall be required to provide an indigent defendant with expert assistance under Ake v. Oklahoma the Supreme Court employed a three part analysis.

1992Later, in Ake v. State, 778 P.2d 460 , 464 n. 1 (Okl.Cr.1989), this Court noted that the ruling enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ake v. Oklahoma dealt specifically with psychiatric experts, but did not preclude the possibility that the principles of Ake should be extended to includé any expert which is “necessary for an adequate defense.” To decide whether the State shall be required to provide an indigent defendant with expert assistance under Ake v. Oklahoma the Supreme Court employed a three part analysis.

2013In Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19 , 189 P.3d 907 , we detailed the three part test for plain error.

2013Id., 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38 , 139 P.3d at 923 .

2007JURY SELECTION ISSUES I 10 In his first assignment of error, Smith contends that the State's proffered race-neutral reasons for striking a potential alternate juror with a peremptory challenge was pre-textual, and that the juror's excusal from the jury violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 111 Batson establishes the following three part analysis: (1) the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race; (2) after the r

2007JURY SELECTION ISSUES I 10 In his first assignment of error, Smith contends that the State's proffered race-neutral reasons for striking a potential alternate juror with a peremptory challenge was pre-textual, and that the juror's excusal from the jury violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 111 Batson establishes the following three part analysis: (1) the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race; (2) after the r

1998In analyzing whether a statute violates the Contract Clause, the inquiry begins with a three part test: “whether there is a contractual relationship, whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and whether the impairment is substantial.” General Motors Corp., 503 U.S. at 186 , 112 S.Ct. at 1109 ; Taylor, 1995 OK 51 at ¶ 14 , 897 P.2d at 279 .

1998In analyzing whether a statute violates the Contract Clause, the inquiry begins with a three part test: "whether there is a contractual relationship, whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and whether the impairment is substantial." General Motors Corp., 503 U.S. at 186 , 112 S.Ct. at 1109 ; Taylor, 1995 OK 51 at ¶ 14 , 897 P.2d at 279 .

1998In analyzing whether a statute violates the Contract Clause, the inquiry begins with a three part test: "whether there is a contractual relationship, whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and whether the impairment is substantial." General Motors Corp., 503 U.S. at 186 , 112 S.Ct. at 1109 ; Taylor, 1995 OK 51 at ¶ 14 , 897 P.2d at 279 .

1998In analyzing whether a statute violates the Contract Clause, the inquiry begins with a three part test: "whether there is a contractual relationship, whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and whether the impairment is substantial." General Motors Corp., 503 U.S. at 186 , 112 S.Ct. at 1109 ; Taylor, 1995 OK 51 at ¶ 14 , 897 P.2d at 279 .

1998In analyzing whether a statute violates the Contract Clause, the inquiry begins with a three part test: “whether there is a contractual relationship, whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and whether the impairment is substantial.” General Motors Corp., 503 U.S. at 186 , 112 S.Ct. at 1109 ; Taylor, 1995 OK 51 at ¶ 14 , 897 P.2d at 279 .

1998In analyzing whether a statute violates the Contract Clause, the inquiry begins with a three part test: "whether there is a contractual relationship, whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and whether the impairment is substantial." General Motors Corp., 503 U.S. at 186 , 112 S.Ct. at 1109 ; Taylor, 1995 OK 51 at ¶ 14 , 897 P.2d at 279 .

1996In Addington, 441 U.S. at 424 , 99 S.Ct. at 1808, the United States Supreme Court articulated a three part test to determine what burden of proof should be employed in a civil commitment proceeding.

1996In Addington, 441 U.S. at 424 , 99 S.Ct. at 1808, the United States Supreme Court articulated a three part test to determine what burden of proof should be employed in a civil commitment proceeding.

1995In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Court established a three part standard for determining whether a state's actions violate the Establishment Clause.

1985It has long been established since Blackstonian jurisprudence that a judicial decision has retrospective effect. 13 However, in recent years a vast body of case law has developed as to the question of prospective or retroactive application. 14 In a case which is particularly instructive on this issue, Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), cited by the litigants, the United States Supreme Court enunciated and applied a three part test for the determination of the application of United States Supreme Court decisions in the context of civil litigation.

1985It has long been established since Blackstonian jurisprudence that a judicial decision has retrospective effect. 13 However, in recent years a vast body of case law has developed as to the question of prospective or retroactive application. 14 In a case which is particularly instructive on this issue, Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), cited by the litigants, the United States Supreme Court enunciated and applied a three part test for the determination of the application of United States Supreme Court decisions in the context of civil litigation.