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.
7 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1935–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp.green2 sentences2012Stat. tit. 20, § 3001.1 (2001); see also Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp., 2006 OK 47, 115 , 139 P.3d 897, 902 . 2012Stat. tit. 20, § 3001.1 (2001); see also Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp., 2006 OK 47, 115 , 139 P.3d 897, 902 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Blevinsgreen2 sentences2020Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 53, 230 P.3d 888, 906 (holding that denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11(B) necessarily involves an adverse adjudication of the corresponding ineffective counsel claim under the more rigorous Strickland standard); State v. Blevins , 1992 OK CR 4, ¶ 2, 825 P.2d 270, 271. ¶9 I am authorized to state that Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn joins in this separate opinion specially concurring. 2020Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 53 , 230 P.3d 888, 906 (holding that denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11(B) necessarily involves an adverse adjudication of the corresponding ineffective counsel claim under the more rigorous Strickland standard); State v. Blevins , 1992 OK CR 4 , ¶ 2, 825 P.2d 270, 271 . ¶9 I am authorized to state that Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn joins in this separate opinion specially concurring. | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 53, 230 P.3d 888, 906 (holding that denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11(B) necessarily involves an adverse adjudication of the corresponding ineffective counsel claim under the more rigorous Strickland standard); State v. Blevins , 1992 OK CR 4, ¶ 2, 825 P.2d 270, 271. ¶9 I am authorized to state that Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn joins in this separate opinion specially concurring. 2020Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 53, 230 P.3d 888, 906 (holding that denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11(B) necessarily involves an adverse adjudication of the corresponding ineffective counsel claim under the more rigorous Strickland standard); State v. Blevins , 1992 OK CR 4, ¶ 2, 825 P.2d 270, 271. ¶9 I am authorized to state that Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn joins in this separate opinion specially concurring. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
PELLEBON v. STATE ex rel. BOARD OF REGENTS
neutral
2 sentences2016Board of Regents, 2015 OK CIV APP 70, ¶ 14 , 358 P.3d 288 . ¶ 40 The order on appeal neither allows for amendment nor contains a statement indicating amendment would not cure the defects, and thus fails to comply with 2012(G). 2016Board of Regents, 2015 OK CIV APP 70, ¶ 14 , 358 P.3d 288 . ¶ 40 The order on appeal neither allows for amendment nor contains a statement indicating amendment would not cure the defects, and thus fails to comply with 2012(G). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Rakestraw v. Rakestraw
green
1 sentence1961After hearing the evidence, the trial court first entered judgment finding that “* * * plaintiff is not entitled to a divorce from defendant and that the case of Wright v. Wright [Okl.], 303 P.2d 428 , is in point and controlling upon the court.” Thereafter the court sustained plaintiff’s motion for new trial, stating in his order, among other things: “ * * * On consideration of the case of Rakestraw v. Rakestraw [Okl.], 345 P.2d 888 , and the cases cited therein, the Court concludes that the rule in force prior to the passing of the 1955 Act (Title 12, sec. 1271 O.S.A.) and set out in Forrest | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Wright v. Wright
neutral
1 sentence1961After hearing the evidence, the trial court first entered judgment finding that “* * * plaintiff is not entitled to a divorce from defendant and that the case of Wright v. Wright [Okl.], 303 P.2d 428 , is in point and controlling upon the court.” Thereafter the court sustained plaintiff’s motion for new trial, stating in his order, among other things: “ * * * On consideration of the case of Rakestraw v. Rakestraw [Okl.], 345 P.2d 888 , and the cases cited therein, the Court concludes that the rule in force prior to the passing of the 1955 Act (Title 12, sec. 1271 O.S.A.) and set out in Forrest | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Forrester v. Forrester
neutral
2 sentences1961After hearing the evidence, the trial court first entered judgment finding that “* * * plaintiff is not entitled to a divorce from defendant and that the case of Wright v. Wright [Okl.], 303 P.2d 428 , is in point and controlling upon the court.” Thereafter the court sustained plaintiff’s motion for new trial, stating in his order, among other things: “ * * * On consideration of the case of Rakestraw v. Rakestraw [Okl.], 345 P.2d 888 , and the cases cited therein, the Court concludes that the rule in force prior to the passing of the 1955 Act (Title 12, sec. 1271 O.S.A.) and set out in Forrest 1961After hearing the evidence, the trial court first entered judgment finding that “* * * plaintiff is not entitled to a divorce from defendant and that the case of Wright v. Wright [Okl.], 303 P.2d 428 , is in point and controlling upon the court.” Thereafter the court sustained plaintiff’s motion for new trial, stating in his order, among other things: “ * * * On consideration of the case of Rakestraw v. Rakestraw [Okl.], 345 P.2d 888 , and the cases cited therein, the Court concludes that the rule in force prior to the passing of the 1955 Act (Title 12, sec. 1271 O.S.A.) and set out in Forrest | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Stanfield v. Lincoln
neutral
2 sentences1935In the case of Stanfield v. Lincoln, 150 Okla. 289 , 1 P. (2d) 387 , citing numerous cases previously decided by this court, this court stated what is the well and definitely established rule in this state, as follows: “In an action of ejectment, all delenses, legal and equitable, may be proven under a general denial.” The decisions of this court to the effect of the language just quoted are based upon and interpret section 593, Oklahoma Statutes 1931, governing the pleadings in ejectment eases. 1935In the case of Stanfield v. Lincoln, 150 Okla. 289 , 1 P. (2d) 387 , citing numerous cases previously decided by this court, this court stated what is the well and definitely established rule in this state, as follows: “In an action of ejectment, all delenses, legal and equitable, may be proven under a general denial.” The decisions of this court to the effect of the language just quoted are based upon and interpret section 593, Oklahoma Statutes 1931, governing the pleadings in ejectment eases. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.