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 2 courts 1990–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lone Star Helicopters, Inc. v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Dept. of Mines v. Jackson , 1997 OK 149 , ¶ 12, 950 P.2d 306, 310 ("Because the sureties actions tender issues that are not cognizable by ODM the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine is not invocable as a bar to their quests for declaratory relief."); Lone Star Helicopters, Inc. v. State , 1990 OK 111 , 800 P.2d 235, 238 (the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine was not invocable as a bar to the action for recovery of damages from breach of contract). 32 Apache Corp. v. State ex rel. 2021Dept. of Mines v. Jackson , 1997 OK 149 , ¶ 12, 950 P.2d 306, 310 ("Because the sureties actions tender issues that are not cognizable by ODM the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine is not invocable as a bar to their quests for declaratory relief."); Lone Star Helicopters, Inc. v. State , 1990 OK 111 , 800 P.2d 235, 238 (the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine was not invocable as a bar to the action for recovery of damages from breach of contract). 32 Apache Corp. v. State ex rel. | 5 | 5 |
STATE EX REL. OKL. DEPT. OF MINES v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2021Dept. of Mines v. Jackson , 1997 OK 149 , ¶ 12, 950 P.2d 306, 310 ("Because the sureties actions tender issues that are not cognizable by ODM the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine is not invocable as a bar to their quests for declaratory relief."); Lone Star Helicopters, Inc. v. State , 1990 OK 111 , 800 P.2d 235, 238 (the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine was not invocable as a bar to the action for recovery of damages from breach of contract). 32 Apache Corp. v. State ex rel. 2021Dept. of Mines v. Jackson , 1997 OK 149 , ¶ 12, 950 P.2d 306, 310 ("Because the sureties actions tender issues that are not cognizable by ODM the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine is not invocable as a bar to their quests for declaratory relief."); Lone Star Helicopters, Inc. v. State , 1990 OK 111 , 800 P.2d 235, 238 (the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine was not invocable as a bar to the action for recovery of damages from breach of contract). 32 Apache Corp. v. State ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
Oklahoma City Zoological Trust v. State Ex Rel. Public Employees Relations Boardgreen1 sentence2013Public Employees Relations Bd., 2007 OK 21 , T7, 158 P.3d 461, 464-465 ('But one need not exhaust administrative remedies where, as here, 'the power of the agency to act at all under the statutory scheme it is charged with administering' is being challenged."); Lone Star Helicopters, Inc. v. State, 1990 OK 111 , 800 P.2d 235, 238 (the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine was not invocable as a bar to the action for recovery of damages from breach of contract). . | 1 | 1 |
Head v. McCrackengreen2 sentences2005“In such a de novo review the appellate court engages in a plenary, independent and non-deferential reexamination of the trial court’s ruling.” Head v. McCracken, 2004 OK 84, ¶ 3 , 102 P.3d 670, 674 (Emphasis original.) ¶ 5 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, in part, based upon the exhaustion of remedies doctrine. 2005“In such a de novo review the appellate court engages in a plenary, independent and non-deferential reexamination of the trial court’s ruling.” Head v. McCracken, 2004 OK 84, ¶ 3 , 102 P.3d 670, 674 (Emphasis original.) ¶ 5 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, in part, based upon the exhaustion of remedies doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Burdick v. Independent School District No. 52green1 sentence1990For other instances in which this court has held the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine inapplicable to bar a suit in the district court, see United Airlines, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, Okl., 789 P.2d 1305, 1308-1309 (1990), where, in the absence of an administrative avenue for challenging an agency’s power to assess ad valorem taxes against the plaintiff-taxpayers, the district court undertook to test the power’s existence; Burdick v. Independent School Dist., Okl., 702 P.2d 48, 52-53 (1985), where, in a suit to enjoin one school district from compelling students’ attendance in another, | 1 | 1 |
United Airlines, Inc. v. State Board of Equalizationgreen1 sentence1990For other instances in which this court has held the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine inapplicable to bar a suit in the district court, see United Airlines, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, Okl., 789 P.2d 1305, 1308-1309 (1990), where, in the absence of an administrative avenue for challenging an agency’s power to assess ad valorem taxes against the plaintiff-taxpayers, the district court undertook to test the power’s existence; Burdick v. Independent School Dist., Okl., 702 P.2d 48, 52-53 (1985), where, in a suit to enjoin one school district from compelling students’ attendance in another, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oklahoma City Zoological Trust v. STATE EX REL. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS BD.
green
1 sentence2013Public Employees Relations Bd., 2007 OK 21 , T7, 158 P.3d 461, 464-465 ('But one need not exhaust administrative remedies where, as here, 'the power of the agency to act at all under the statutory scheme it is charged with administering' is being challenged."); Lone Star Helicopters, Inc. v. State, 1990 OK 111 , 800 P.2d 235, 238 (the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine was not invocable as a bar to the action for recovery of damages from breach of contract). . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Elgin v. Department of the Treasury
green
1 sentence2013Elgin v. Department of Treasury,-U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2126, 2132 , 183 LEd.2d 1 (2012), quoting Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603 , 108 S.Ct. 2047 , 100 LEd.2d 632 (1988). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Webster v. Doe
green
2 sentences2013Elgin v. Department of Treasury,-U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2126, 2132 , 183 LEd.2d 1 (2012), quoting Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603 , 108 S.Ct. 2047 , 100 LEd.2d 632 (1988). 2013Elgin v. Department of Treasury,-U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2126, 2132 , 183 LEd.2d 1 (2012), quoting Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603 , 108 S.Ct. 2047 , 100 LEd.2d 632 (1988). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Helling v. McKinney
green
2 sentences2005Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 , 113 S.Ct. 2475 , 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). 2005Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 , 113 S.Ct. 2475 , 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.