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 1929–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Boggessgreen2 sentences2006In addition, there is no doubt that one of the findings of Juror Fisher's out-of-court research had a direct bearing upon a key issue in plaintiffs' theory and proof of negligence. 120 It has long been recognized that "Iwlhere a motion for new trial is filed assigning as one of the grounds therefor misconduct of a juror and at a hearing on said motion, at which evidence is introduced, questions of fact are raised as to whether the juror was guilty of such misconduct, the finding of the trial court on such question of fact will not be disturbed [on appeal] where there is evidence reasonably sup 2006In addition, there is no doubt that one of the findings of Juror Fisher's out-of-court research had a direct bearing upon a key issue in plaintiffs' theory and proof of negligence. 120 It has long been recognized that "Iwlhere a motion for new trial is filed assigning as one of the grounds therefor misconduct of a juror and at a hearing on said motion, at which evidence is introduced, questions of fact are raised as to whether the juror was guilty of such misconduct, the finding of the trial court on such question of fact will not be disturbed [on appeal] where there is evidence reasonably sup | 1 | 1 |
Fields v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.green2 sentences1985Lastly, respondent argues the affidavits of petitioner's counsel and Juror Griffin are hearsay and not admissible citing Fields v. Volkswagen of America, 555 P.2d 48, 59 (Okla. 1976). 1985Lastly, respondent argues the affidavits of petitioner’s counsel and Juror Griffin are hearsay and not admissible citing Fields v. Volkswagen of America, 555 P.2d 48, 59 (Okla.1976). | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Stategreen2 sentences1976In Henderson v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 342 , 246 P.2d 393, 416 (1952), the Court said, in quoting from Allen v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 143 , 105 P. 2d 450 (1940): “ ‘Granting a new trial in criminal prosecution for disqualification of juror, which was unknown to defendant until after rendition of verdict, is matter of judicial discretion.’ ” Henderson v. State, supra, went on to quote from Stouse v. State, 6 Okl.Cr. 415 , 119 P.271 (1911), to say: “ ‘As a general rule, a verdict will not be set aside for reasons that would be sufficient to disqualify a juror on a challenge for cause, which existed befor 1976In Henderson v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 342 , 246 P.2d 393, 416 (1952), the Court said, in quoting from Allen v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 143 , 105 P. 2d 450 (1940): “ ‘Granting a new trial in criminal prosecution for disqualification of juror, which was unknown to defendant until after rendition of verdict, is matter of judicial discretion.’ ” Henderson v. State, supra, went on to quote from Stouse v. State, 6 Okl.Cr. 415 , 119 P.271 (1911), to say: “ ‘As a general rule, a verdict will not be set aside for reasons that would be sufficient to disqualify a juror on a challenge for cause, which existed befor | 1 | 1 |
Wagers v. Stategreen1 sentence1976In Henderson v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 342 , 246 P.2d 393, 416 (1952), the Court said, in quoting from Allen v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 143 , 105 P. 2d 450 (1940): “ ‘Granting a new trial in criminal prosecution for disqualification of juror, which was unknown to defendant until after rendition of verdict, is matter of judicial discretion.’ ” Henderson v. State, supra, went on to quote from Stouse v. State, 6 Okl.Cr. 415 , 119 P.271 (1911), to say: “ ‘As a general rule, a verdict will not be set aside for reasons that would be sufficient to disqualify a juror on a challenge for cause, which existed befor | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stouse v. State
green
2 sentences1976In Henderson v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 342 , 246 P.2d 393, 416 (1952), the Court said, in quoting from Allen v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 143 , 105 P. 2d 450 (1940): “ ‘Granting a new trial in criminal prosecution for disqualification of juror, which was unknown to defendant until after rendition of verdict, is matter of judicial discretion.’ ” Henderson v. State, supra, went on to quote from Stouse v. State, 6 Okl.Cr. 415 , 119 P.271 (1911), to say: “ ‘As a general rule, a verdict will not be set aside for reasons that would be sufficient to disqualify a juror on a challenge for cause, which existed befor 1952Cr. 415 , 119 P. 271 , this court announced the following rule of law that we find applicable in the within case: “As a general rule, a verdict will not be set aside for reasons that would be sufficient to disqualify a juror on a challenge for cause, which existed before the juror was sworn, but which was unknown to the accused until after the verdict, unless it appears from the whole case that the accused suffered injustice from the fact that the juror served in the case.” For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court of Muskogee county is affirmed. | 4 | 1929–1976 |
Bruno v. Getzelman
green
1 sentence1976In Henderson v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 342 , 246 P.2d 393, 416 (1952), the Court said, in quoting from Allen v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 143 , 105 P. 2d 450 (1940): “ ‘Granting a new trial in criminal prosecution for disqualification of juror, which was unknown to defendant until after rendition of verdict, is matter of judicial discretion.’ ” Henderson v. State, supra, went on to quote from Stouse v. State, 6 Okl.Cr. 415 , 119 P.271 (1911), to say: “ ‘As a general rule, a verdict will not be set aside for reasons that would be sufficient to disqualify a juror on a challenge for cause, which existed befor | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Allen v. State
green
1 sentence1976In Henderson v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 342 , 246 P.2d 393, 416 (1952), the Court said, in quoting from Allen v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 143 , 105 P. 2d 450 (1940): “ ‘Granting a new trial in criminal prosecution for disqualification of juror, which was unknown to defendant until after rendition of verdict, is matter of judicial discretion.’ ” Henderson v. State, supra, went on to quote from Stouse v. State, 6 Okl.Cr. 415 , 119 P.271 (1911), to say: “ ‘As a general rule, a verdict will not be set aside for reasons that would be sufficient to disqualify a juror on a challenge for cause, which existed befor | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Horton v. State
green
1 sentence1949Cr. 294 , 136 P. 177 , it is held: “ ‘As a general rule, a verdict will not be set aside for reasons that would be sufficient to disqualify a juror on a challenge for cause, which existed before the juror was sworn, but which was unknown to the defendant) until after conviction, unless it appears from the whole case that the defendant suffered injustice from the fact (.hat the juror served in the case.’ ” We do not believe that the evidence introduced by the defendant, Odell, is sufficient to show that the juror, Lester, was acquainted with the defendant, much less that he was prejudiced again | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Suggs v. State
neutral
2 sentences1930Cr. 416 , 119 Pac. 271 , in paragraph 6 of the syllabus, this court said: “As a general rule, a verdict will not be set aside for reasons that would be sufficient to disqualify a juror on a challenge for cause, which existed before the juror was sworn, but which was unknown to the accused until after the verdict, unless it appears from the whole case that the accused suffered injustice from the fact that the juror served in the case.” This rule was followed in the late case of Suggs v. State, 46 Okla. 1930Cr. 340 , 285 Pac. 985 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.