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 1 courts 1912–1988 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williamson v. Davisgreen2 sentences1988See Williamson v. Davis, 74 Okl. 174 , 177 P. 567 (1919). 6 . 1988See Williamson v. Davis, 74 Okl. 174 , 177 P. 567 (1919). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schnelle v. McClure
green
1 sentence1987On appeal the temporary Court of Appeals held the rule applicable is that generally an exception in the habendum clause of a deed is an exception or reservation from the warranty and not from the grant expressed in the granting clause, unless there are express words which clearly show the intent of the grantor to create an exception from the grant or a reservation of some interest in the grantor, and not merely a limitation in the warranty citing Schnelle v. McClure, 330 P.2d 598 (Okl.1958), Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680 (Okl.1958), Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 179 Okl. 561 , | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Whitman v. Harrison
green
1 sentence1987On appeal the temporary Court of Appeals held the rule applicable is that generally an exception in the habendum clause of a deed is an exception or reservation from the warranty and not from the grant expressed in the granting clause, unless there are express words which clearly show the intent of the grantor to create an exception from the grant or a reservation of some interest in the grantor, and not merely a limitation in the warranty citing Schnelle v. McClure, 330 P.2d 598 (Okl.1958), Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680 (Okl.1958), Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 179 Okl. 561 , | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corp.
green
2 sentences1987On appeal the temporary Court of Appeals held the rule applicable is that generally an exception in the habendum clause of a deed is an exception or reservation from the warranty and not from the grant expressed in the granting clause, unless there are express words which clearly show the intent of the grantor to create an exception from the grant or a reservation of some interest in the grantor, and not merely a limitation in the warranty citing Schnelle v. McClure, 330 P.2d 598 (Okl.1958), Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680 (Okl.1958), Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 179 Okl. 561 , 1987On appeal the temporary Court of Appeals held the rule applicable is that generally an exception in the habendum clause of a deed is an exception or reservation from the warranty and not from the grant expressed in the granting clause, unless there are express words which clearly show the intent of the grantor to create an exception from the grant or a reservation of some interest in the grantor, and not merely a limitation in the warranty citing Schnelle v. McClure, 330 P.2d 598 (Okl.1958), Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680 (Okl.1958), Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 179 Okl. 561 , | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Turner v. Turner
neutral
1 sentence1987On appeal the temporary Court of Appeals held the rule applicable is that generally an exception in the habendum clause of a deed is an exception or reservation from the warranty and not from the grant expressed in the granting clause, unless there are express words which clearly show the intent of the grantor to create an exception from the grant or a reservation of some interest in the grantor, and not merely a limitation in the warranty citing Schnelle v. McClure, 330 P.2d 598 (Okl.1958), Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680 (Okl.1958), Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 179 Okl. 561 , | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Jarrett v. Moore
neutral
1 sentence1987On appeal the temporary Court of Appeals held the rule applicable is that generally an exception in the habendum clause of a deed is an exception or reservation from the warranty and not from the grant expressed in the granting clause, unless there are express words which clearly show the intent of the grantor to create an exception from the grant or a reservation of some interest in the grantor, and not merely a limitation in the warranty citing Schnelle v. McClure, 330 P.2d 598 (Okl.1958), Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680 (Okl.1958), Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 179 Okl. 561 , | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Echolustee Oil Co. v. Johnston
green
2 sentences1987On appeal the temporary Court of Appeals held the rule applicable is that generally an exception in the habendum clause of a deed is an exception or reservation from the warranty and not from the grant expressed in the granting clause, unless there are express words which clearly show the intent of the grantor to create an exception from the grant or a reservation of some interest in the grantor, and not merely a limitation in the warranty citing Schnelle v. McClure, 330 P.2d 598 (Okl.1958), Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680 (Okl.1958), Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 179 Okl. 561 , 1987On appeal the temporary Court of Appeals held the rule applicable is that generally an exception in the habendum clause of a deed is an exception or reservation from the warranty and not from the grant expressed in the granting clause, unless there are express words which clearly show the intent of the grantor to create an exception from the grant or a reservation of some interest in the grantor, and not merely a limitation in the warranty citing Schnelle v. McClure, 330 P.2d 598 (Okl.1958), Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680 (Okl.1958), Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 179 Okl. 561 , | 1 | 1987–1987 |
McKeever v. Parker
green
2 sentences1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . 1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Fisher v. Pugh
green
1 sentence1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Hamburg v. Doak
green
2 sentences1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . 1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Wasson v. Collett
neutral
2 sentences1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . 1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Yarbrough v. Bellamy
green
2 sentences1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . 1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Abrams v. Neal
neutral
2 sentences1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . 1966Fisher v. Pugh, supra; Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 ; Wasson v. Collett, 204 Okl. 360 , 230 P.2d 258 ; McKeever v. Parker, 204 Okl. 1 , 226 P.2d 425 ; Yarbrough v. Bellamy, 197 Okl. 493 , 172 P.2d 801 ; Abrams v. Neal, Adm’r., 178 Okl. 158 , 61 P.2d 1103 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Sunderland v. United States
green
2 sentences1925A similar holding was made in the case of Sunderland v. United States, 266 U. S. 226 , 60 Law Ed. 259, 45 S. Ct. 64 . 1925A similar holding was made in the case of Sunderland v. United States, 266 U. S. 226 , 60 Law Ed. 259, 45 S. Ct. 64 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Garber v. Hauser
neutral
2 sentences1924In the case of Garber et al. v. Hauser et al., 76 Okla. 292 , 185 Pac. 436 , in an opinion *247 by Justice McNeill, this count has said in the second paragraph of the syllabus as follows : “The general rule is that the unsupported or uncorroborated testimony of the grantor is not sufficient to overcome the certificate of acknowledgment of the notary public to a conveyance regular on its face, especially when the certificate is supported by the testimony of the officer who took the acknowledgment, or by other competent evidence, but such testimony may be sufficient if, in view of the circumstan 1924In the case of Garber et al. v. Hauser et al., 76 Okla. 292 , 185 Pac. 436 , in an opinion *247 by Justice McNeill, this count has said in the second paragraph of the syllabus as follows : “The general rule is that the unsupported or uncorroborated testimony of the grantor is not sufficient to overcome the certificate of acknowledgment of the notary public to a conveyance regular on its face, especially when the certificate is supported by the testimony of the officer who took the acknowledgment, or by other competent evidence, but such testimony may be sufficient if, in view of the circumstan | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Shaffer v. Smith
green
2 sentences1924Ernest Potts had possession of 1he deed and filed it for record on the 20th of January-, 1920. ! '■ *27 In Shaffer v. Smith et al., 53 Okla. 352 , 156 Pac. 1188 , this court said: “The rule is that when the grantee is in possession of a deed the presumption is that it was delivered at the date of the execution.” , Thus, the conclusion that the deed was delivered at the time of its execution is supported both by the weight of the evidence and .the presumption of law. 1924Ernest Potts had possession of 1he deed and filed it for record on the 20th of January-, 1920. ! '■ *27 In Shaffer v. Smith et al., 53 Okla. 352 , 156 Pac. 1188 , this court said: “The rule is that when the grantee is in possession of a deed the presumption is that it was delivered at the date of the execution.” , Thus, the conclusion that the deed was delivered at the time of its execution is supported both by the weight of the evidence and .the presumption of law. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Dyal v. Norton
green
2 sentences1924In the case of Garber et al. v. Hauser et al., 76 Okla. 292 , 185 Pac. 436 , in an opinion *247 by Justice McNeill, this count has said in the second paragraph of the syllabus as follows : “The general rule is that the unsupported or uncorroborated testimony of the grantor is not sufficient to overcome the certificate of acknowledgment of the notary public to a conveyance regular on its face, especially when the certificate is supported by the testimony of the officer who took the acknowledgment, or by other competent evidence, but such testimony may be sufficient if, in view of the circumstan 1924In the case of Garber et al. v. Hauser et al., 76 Okla. 292 , 185 Pac. 436 , in an opinion *247 by Justice McNeill, this count has said in the second paragraph of the syllabus as follows : “The general rule is that the unsupported or uncorroborated testimony of the grantor is not sufficient to overcome the certificate of acknowledgment of the notary public to a conveyance regular on its face, especially when the certificate is supported by the testimony of the officer who took the acknowledgment, or by other competent evidence, but such testimony may be sufficient if, in view of the circumstan | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Huston v. Scott
neutral
2 sentences1912Laws 1909, as construed by this court in the cases of Huston v. Scott et al., 20 Okla. 142 , 94 Pac. 512 , 35 L. 1912Laws 1909, as construed by this court in the cases of Huston v. Scott et al., 20 Okla. 142 , 94 Pac. 512 , 35 L. | 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.