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 1996–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Tony's Town Mister Quikgreen2 sentences2004See Johnson, 1996 OK 138, ¶ 5 , 915 P.2d at 357 . ¶ 13 MPC argues that the Supreme Court's recent decisions on the mailbox rule should not apply here because they addressed only appellate proceedings in the Supreme Court. 2004See Johnson, 1996 OK 138, ¶ 5 , 915 P.2d at 357 . ¶ 13 MPC argues that the Supreme Court's recent decisions on the mailbox rule should not apply here because they addressed only appellate proceedings in the Supreme Court. | 3 | 3 |
Whitehead v. Tulsa Public Schoolsgreen2 sentences2023Sch. , 1998 OK 71, ¶ 5 , 968 P.2d 1211, 1213 . 2023Sch. , 1998 OK 71, ¶ 5 , 968 P.2d 1211, 1213 . | 2 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. MacY v. BD. OF COM'RSgreen2 sentences2004See Macy, 1999 OK 53 , n. 32, 986 P.2d 1130 . ¶ 11 Although the mailbox rule enunciated in section 940A applies expressly to appeals to the Supreme Court, its common law predecessor was not so limited and was actually articulated as a rule of contract law. 2004See Macy, 1999 OK 53 , n. 32, 986 P.2d 1130 . ¶ 11 Although the mailbox rule enunciated in section 940A applies expressly to appeals to the Supreme Court, its common law predecessor was not so limited and was actually articulated as a rule of contract law. | 2 | 2 |
Woody v. State Ex Rel. Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2001L'Aquarius v. Maynard, 1981 OK 115 , 634 P.2d 1310, 1811 , see Woody, 833 P.2d at 258 *488 4 22 There is little doubt that, but for the enactment of § 990A, the result in Woody would have followed the holding of L'Aquarius. 1996Dept. of Corrections, Okl., 833 P.2d 257, 258 (1992). [6] The mailbox rule's general impact is not diminished by the location given to § 990A(B) in Title 12, which is designated for Civil Procedure. | 1 | 2 |
Green v. Greengreen2 sentences1996Green v. Green, Okl., 309 P.2d 276, 278 (1957). . 1996Green v. Green, Okl., 309 P.2d 276, 278 (1957). [7] The terms of Art. 5, § 46, Okl.Const., state in pertinent part: "The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law authorizing: * * * * * * Regulating the practice or jurisdiction of ... in judicial proceedings or inquiry before the courts ... or other tribunals ...." [Emphasis supplied.] See Reynolds v. Porter, Okl., 760 P.2d 816, 822 (1988); Maule v. Independent School Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Woods v. Woodsgreen2 sentences1996If there is no proof from the post office of the date of mailing, the date of receipt by the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall constitute the date of filing of the petition in error." [Emphasis added.] For application of the mailbox rule in Oklahoma’s extant jurisprudence, see Woods v. Woods, Okl., 830 P.2d 1372, 1374 (1992); Woody v. State ex rel. 1996If there is no proof from the post office of the date of mailing, the date of receipt by the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall constitute the date of filing of the petition in error." [Emphasis added.] For application of the mailbox rule in Oklahoma's extant jurisprudence, see Woods v. Woods, Okl., 830 P.2d 1372, 1374 (1992); Woody v. State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds v. Portergreen1 sentence1996Green v. Green, Okl., 309 P.2d 276, 278 (1957). [7] The terms of Art. 5, § 46, Okl.Const., state in pertinent part: "The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law authorizing: * * * * * * Regulating the practice or jurisdiction of ... in judicial proceedings or inquiry before the courts ... or other tribunals ...." [Emphasis supplied.] See Reynolds v. Porter, Okl., 760 P.2d 816, 822 (1988); Maule v. Independent School Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Rockwell International v. Hamptongreen2 sentences1996See, dissent by Kauger, J. in Rockwell International v. Hampton, 886 P.2d 992, 993 (Okla. 1994). 1996The mailbox rule was unchanged by this amendment. [2] See, dissent by Kauger, J. in Rockwell International v. Hampton, 886 P.2d 992, 993 (Okla. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eagle Life Ins. Co., Inc. v. Rush
neutral
2 sentences2010However, Eagle Life Insurance Company, Inc. v. Rush, 1992 OK 78 , 4, 832 P.2d 1224, 1224 , found that the seetion 990A(B) requirement of "mailing by certified or first-class mail, postage prepaid" extends the benefit of the mailbox rule only to petitions mailed with sufficient postage. 2010However, Eagle Life Insurance Company, Inc. v. Rush, 1992 OK 78 , ¶ 4, 832 P.2d 1224, 1224 , found that the section 990A(B) requirement of "mailing by certified or first-class mail, postage prepaid " extends the benefit of the mailbox rule only to petitions mailed with sufficient postage. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Banks v. State
green
2 sentences2001Banks, 953 P.2d at 346 . 120 In Banks, this Court explained that our "appeal out of time" procedure afforded a pro se prisoner more protection than that afforded by a mere "mailbox rule." Id. 2001Banks, 953 P.2d at 346 . 120 In Banks, this Court explained that our "appeal out of time" procedure afforded a pro se prisoner more protection than that afforded by a mere "mailbox rule." Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
L'AQUARIUS v. Maynard
neutral
2 sentences2001L'Aquarius v. Maynard, 1981 OK 115 , 634 P.2d 1310, 1811 , see Woody, 833 P.2d at 258 *488 4 22 There is little doubt that, but for the enactment of § 990A, the result in Woody would have followed the holding of L'Aquarius. 2001L'Aquarius v. Maynard, 1981 OK 115 , 634 P.2d 1310, 1811 , see Woody, 833 P.2d at 258 *488 4 22 There is little doubt that, but for the enactment of § 990A, the result in Woody would have followed the holding of L'Aquarius. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ireton v. Saint Francis Hospital
neutral
2 sentences1996The petition for review was mailed the next business day — Monday, March 21. [2] The pertinent terms of 85 O.S. 1991 § 3.6(B) are: "The order, decision or award of the Court shall be final and conclusive upon all questions within its jurisdiction between the parties, unless, less, within twenty (20) days after a copy of such order, decision or award has been sent... to the parties affected, an action is commenced in the Supreme Court of the state, to review such order, decision or award." [Emphasis added.] [3] Ireton v. Saint Francis Hosp., Okl., 844 P.2d 151 (1992). [4] The so-called mailbox 1996Id. at 251 . [5] The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.Supp. 1993 § 990A(B) are: "The filing of the petition in error may be accomplished either by delivery or by certified mail with return receipt requested to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.