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 1912–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Estate of Wilder
neutral
2 sentences2012In the Matter of Speers, 2008 OK 16, ¶ 8 , 179 P.3d 1265 ; In re Estate of Holcomb, 2002 OK 90, ¶ 8 , 63 P.3d 9 ; In re Estate of Wilder, 1976 OK 113, ¶ 7 , 554 P.2d 788 . . 2012In the Matter of Speers, 2008 OK 16, ¶ 8 , 179 P.3d 1265 ; In re Estate of Holcomb, 2002 OK 90, ¶ 8 , 63 P.3d 9 ; In re Estate of Wilder, 1976 OK 113, ¶ 7 , 554 P.2d 788 . . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Speers v. Speers
green
2 sentences2012In the Matter of Speers, 2008 OK 16, ¶ 8 , 179 P.3d 1265 ; In re Estate of Holcomb, 2002 OK 90, ¶ 8 , 63 P.3d 9 ; In re Estate of Wilder, 1976 OK 113, ¶ 7 , 554 P.2d 788 . . 2012In the Matter of Speers, 2008 OK 16, ¶ 8 , 179 P.3d 1265 ; In re Estate of Holcomb, 2002 OK 90, ¶ 8 , 63 P.3d 9 ; In re Estate of Wilder, 1976 OK 113, ¶ 7 , 554 P.2d 788 . . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re Estate of Holcomb
green
2 sentences2012In the Matter of Speers, 2008 OK 16, ¶ 8 , 179 P.3d 1265 ; In re Estate of Holcomb, 2002 OK 90, ¶ 8 , 63 P.3d 9 ; In re Estate of Wilder, 1976 OK 113, ¶ 7 , 554 P.2d 788 . . 2012In the Matter of Speers, 2008 OK 16, ¶ 8 , 179 P.3d 1265 ; In re Estate of Holcomb, 2002 OK 90, ¶ 8 , 63 P.3d 9 ; In re Estate of Wilder, 1976 OK 113, ¶ 7 , 554 P.2d 788 . . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Matter of Adoption of Kdk
neutral
2 sentences2011Also see, the concurring opinion of Lavender, J., with whom Opala, J., joins, upholding the decision in Merrell ; In the Matter of the Adoption of K.D.K, 1997 OK 69 , 940 P.2d 216 . 2011Also see, the concurring opinion of Lavender, J., with whom Opala, J., joins, upholding the decision in Merrell ; In the Matter of the Adoption of K.D.K, 1997 OK 69 , 940 P.2d 216 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wilson v. Kane
green
2 sentences2005Wilson, 1993 OK 65 , 852 P.2d 717 ; Lowrance v. Patton, 1985 OK 95 , 710 P.2d 108 . ¶ 28 Pursuant to the probate code, when a petition for probate of a will is filed, the court must schedule a day for hearing the petition. 58 O.S.2001, § 25. 2005Wilson, 1993 OK 65 , 852 P.2d 717 ; Lowrance v. Patton, 1985 OK 95 , 710 P.2d 108 . ¶ 28 Pursuant to the probate code, when a petition for probate of a will is filed, the court must schedule a day for hearing the petition. 58 O.S.2001, § 25. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lowrance v. Patton
green
2 sentences2005Wilson, 1993 OK 65 , 852 P.2d 717 ; Lowrance v. Patton, 1985 OK 95 , 710 P.2d 108 . ¶ 28 Pursuant to the probate code, when a petition for probate of a will is filed, the court must schedule a day for hearing the petition. 58 O.S.2001, § 25. 2005Wilson, 1993 OK 65 , 852 P.2d 717 ; Lowrance v. Patton, 1985 OK 95 , 710 P.2d 108 . ¶ 28 Pursuant to the probate code, when a petition for probate of a will is filed, the court must schedule a day for hearing the petition. 58 O.S.2001, § 25. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Udall Ex Rel. State Treasurer v. Udall
green
2 sentences1983Therefore, giving the statute a reasonable and sensible construction, see, Udall v. Udall, 613 P.2d 742 (Okl.1980), we hold that from the day the claim was deemed denied, the six-month limitation of Section 156(C) was activated. 1983Therefore, giving the statute a reasonable and sensible construction, see, Udall v. Udall, 613 P.2d 742 (Okl. 1980), we hold that from the day the claim was deemed denied, the six-month limitation of Section 156(C) was activated. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Eaves v. Mullen
green
2 sentences1924Upon the hearing, the court must examine the return and witnesses in relation to the same, and if the jiroceed, ings were unfair, or the sum bid disproportionate to the value, and if it appears that a sum exceeding such bid at least ten peícent, exclusive of the expenses of a new sale, may be obtained, the court may vacate the sale and direct another to be had, of which notice must be given, and the sale in all respects conducted as if no previous sale had taken place; if an offer of ten cent, more in amount than that named in the return be made to the court in writing, by a responsible person 1924Upon the hearing, the court must examine the return and witnesses in relation to the same, and if the jiroceed, ings were unfair, or the sum bid disproportionate to the value, and if it appears that a sum exceeding such bid at least ten peícent, exclusive of the expenses of a new sale, may be obtained, the court may vacate the sale and direct another to be had, of which notice must be given, and the sale in all respects conducted as if no previous sale had taken place; if an offer of ten cent, more in amount than that named in the return be made to the court in writing, by a responsible person | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Ex Parte Tyler
neutral
1 sentence1917In the case of Ex parte Tyler, 2 Okla. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Kerker v. Bocher
green
2 sentences1912In Kerker et al. v. Bocher et al., 20 Okla. 729 , 95 Pac. 981 , the question was raised as to whether the resolution therein relied on was ineffective in that such act of the council must be expressed by ordinance; but there we held that, ori account of the acts of the complaining parties, they were estopped from setting up such fact. 1912In Kerker et al. v. Bocher et al., 20 Okla. 729 , 95 Pac. 981 , the question was raised as to whether the resolution therein relied on was ineffective in that such act of the council must be expressed by ordinance; but there we held that, ori account of the acts of the complaining parties, they were estopped from setting up such fact. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.