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 1919–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Yerkie v. Post-Newsweek Stations, Michigan, Inc.green2 sentences1994See e.g., Yerkie v. Post-Newsweek Stations, supra; Venn v. Tennessean Newspapers, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 47 (N.D.Tenn. 1962); Jones v. Neighbor Newspapers, Inc., supra . 1994See e.g., Yerkie v. Post-Newsweek Stations, supra; Venn v. Tennessean Newspapers, Inc., 201 F.Supp. 47 (N.D.Tenn.1962); Jones v. Neighbor Newspapers, Inc., supra. IV. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Florez v. State
green
2 sentences2011Id., 2010 OK CR 21, ¶ 8 , 239 P.3d at 159 . 2011Id., 2010 OK CR 21, ¶ 8 , 239 P.3d at 159 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Manhart v. Manhart
green
2 sentences2001After approving the wife's assertion that the mere vesting of complete title in a spouse does not remove jointly acquired property from the ambit of 12 0.8. 1981 § 1278 (now 48 0.8.Supp.1992 § 121) 8 and discussing the statute's interpretation and the presumption for jointly acquired property, Mamhart distinguished prior "inter-spousal conveyance" cases all holding that the property was jointly acquired, stating, "[these cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar; in each the spouses continued marital relations for a significant period after the transfer." 1986 OK 12, 139 , 725 P.2 2001After approving the wife's assertion that the mere vesting of complete title in a spouse does not remove jointly acquired property from the ambit of 12 0.8. 1981 § 1278 (now 48 0.8.Supp.1992 § 121) 8 and discussing the statute's interpretation and the presumption for jointly acquired property, Mamhart distinguished prior "inter-spousal conveyance" cases all holding that the property was jointly acquired, stating, "[these cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar; in each the spouses continued marital relations for a significant period after the transfer." 1986 OK 12, 139 , 725 P.2 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Venn v. Tennessean Newspapers, Inc.
green
2 sentences1994See e.g., Yerkie v. Post-Newsweek Stations, supra; Venn v. Tennessean Newspapers, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 47 (N.D.Tenn. 1962); Jones v. Neighbor Newspapers, Inc., supra . 1994See e.g., Yerkie v. Post-Newsweek Stations, supra; Venn v. Tennessean Newspapers, Inc., 201 F.Supp. 47 (N.D.Tenn.1962); Jones v. Neighbor Newspapers, Inc., supra. IV. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Mills v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1989Cf. Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988). 1989Cf. Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Yost, Admr. v. Schmitt
green
1 sentence1961That court said in Williamson Heater Co. v. Radich, 128 Ohio St. 124 , 190 N.E. 403 , 404: “The defendants in error, as did the courts below, rely upon the first paragraph of the syllabus in the case of Matzinger v. Harvard Lumber Co., 115 Ohio St. 555 , 155 N.E. 131 , as decisive of the matter. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Williamson Heater. Co. v. Radich
green
1 sentence1961That court said in Williamson Heater Co. v. Radich, 128 Ohio St. 124 , 190 N.E. 403 , 404: “The defendants in error, as did the courts below, rely upon the first paragraph of the syllabus in the case of Matzinger v. Harvard Lumber Co., 115 Ohio St. 555 , 155 N.E. 131 , as decisive of the matter. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Matzinger v. Harvard Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences1961That court said in Williamson Heater Co. v. Radich, 128 Ohio St. 124 , 190 N.E. 403 , 404: “The defendants in error, as did the courts below, rely upon the first paragraph of the syllabus in the case of Matzinger v. Harvard Lumber Co., 115 Ohio St. 555 , 155 N.E. 131 , as decisive of the matter. 1961That court said in Williamson Heater Co. v. Radich, 128 Ohio St. 124 , 190 N.E. 403 , 404: “The defendants in error, as did the courts below, rely upon the first paragraph of the syllabus in the case of Matzinger v. Harvard Lumber Co., 115 Ohio St. 555 , 155 N.E. 131 , as decisive of the matter. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Tiger v. Drumright
neutral
2 sentences1933Neither can I agree that Tiger v. Drumright, 95 Okla. 174 , 217 P. 453 , cited in the majority opinion, is based upon a correct interpretation of the rule announced in Eaves v. Mullen, supra, in so far as the publication of notice of sale was therein considered. 1933Neither can I agree that Tiger v. Drumright, 95 Okla. 174 , 217 P. 453 , cited in the majority opinion, is based upon a correct interpretation of the rule announced in Eaves v. Mullen, supra, in so far as the publication of notice of sale was therein considered. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
American Jobbing Ass'n v. James
neutral
2 sentences1919American Jobbing Ass’n v. James, 24 Okla. 460 , 103 Pac. 670 ; J. 1919American Jobbing Ass’n v. James, 24 Okla. 460 , 103 Pac. 670 ; J. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.