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 1993–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lennon v. Seamangreen2 sentences2017See Lennon v. Seaman , 63 F.Supp.2d 428, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("when the defense of laches is clear on the face of the complaint, and where it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to avoid the insuperable bar, a court may consider the defense on a motion to dismiss). 2017See Lennon v. Seaman , 63 F.Supp.2d 428, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("when the defense of laches is clear on the face of the complaint, and where it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to avoid the insuperable bar, a court may consider the defense on a motion to dismiss). | 2 | 2 |
Abernethy v. Fishkinred1 sentence2003See Major Fenton, Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act and Veterans’ Disability and Dual Compensation Act Awards, 1998-FEB Army Law. 31, 32; *892 Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526 , 567 N.W.2d 100, 113 (1997) (holding that, although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate, a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits “in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Johnsonred1 sentence2003See Major Fenton, Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act and Veterans’ Disability and Dual Compensation Act Awards, 1998-FEB Army Law. 31, 32; *892 Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526 , 567 N.W.2d 100, 113 (1997) (holding that, although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate, a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits “in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage | 1 | 1 |
Kramer v. Kramergreen2 sentences2003See Major Fenton, Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act and Veterans’ Disability and Dual Compensation Act Awards, 1998-FEB Army Law. 31, 32; *892 Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526 , 567 N.W.2d 100, 113 (1997) (holding that, although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate, a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits “in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage 2003See Major Fenton, Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act and Veterans’ Disability and Dual Compensation Act Awards, 1998-FEB Army Law. 31, 32; *892 Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526 , 567 N.W.2d 100, 113 (1997) (holding that, although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate, a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits “in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sneed v. Sneed
green
2 sentences2004Sneed v. Sneed, 1984 OK 22 , 681 P.2d 754 . ¶ 11 The eight factors listed in Rule 1.5(a), are analogous to the factors listed in State ex rel. 2004Sneed v. Sneed, 1984 OK 22 , 681 P.2d 754 . ¶ 11 The eight factors listed in Rule 1.5(a), are analogous to the factors listed in State ex rel. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Troxell v. Troxell
green
2 sentences2003See Major Fenton, Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act and Veterans’ Disability and Dual Compensation Act Awards, 1998-FEB Army Law. 31, 32; *892 Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526 , 567 N.W.2d 100, 113 (1997) (holding that, although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate, a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits “in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage 2003See Major Fenton, Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act and Veterans’ Disability and Dual Compensation Act Awards, 1998-FEB Army Law. 31, 32; *892 Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526 , 567 N.W.2d 100, 113 (1997) (holding that, although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate, a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits “in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Scheidel v. Scheidel
green
2 sentences2003See Major Fenton, Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act and Veterans’ Disability and Dual Compensation Act Awards, 1998-FEB Army Law. 31, 32; *892 Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526 , 567 N.W.2d 100, 113 (1997) (holding that, although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate, a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits “in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage 2003See Major Fenton, Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act and Veterans’ Disability and Dual Compensation Act Awards, 1998-FEB Army Law. 31, 32; *892 Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526 , 567 N.W.2d 100, 113 (1997) (holding that, although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate, a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits “in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In Re Marriage of Strassner
green
1 sentence2003See Major Fenton, Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act and Veterans’ Disability and Dual Compensation Act Awards, 1998-FEB Army Law. 31, 32; *892 Kramer v. Kramer, 252 Neb. 526 , 567 N.W.2d 100, 113 (1997) (holding that, although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate, a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits “in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage | 1 | 2003–2003 |
McCleskey v. Zant
green
2 sentences1997In other words, this type of claim need not also meet the requirements of section 1089(C)(2) in order to obtain review on the merits. [16] "One of the law's very objects is the finality of its judgments." McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 491 , 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1468 , 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991). [17] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(D)(4)(b)(1). [18] Because Walker did not raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on direct appeal, many of the facts he now asserts to support his trial counsel ineffectiveness claims were obviously not included in his direct appeal record. 1997In other words, this type of claim need not also meet the requirements of section 1089(C)(2) in order to obtain review on the merits. [16] "One of the law's very objects is the finality of its judgments." McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 491 , 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1468 , 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991). [17] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(D)(4)(b)(1). [18] Because Walker did not raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on direct appeal, many of the facts he now asserts to support his trial counsel ineffectiveness claims were obviously not included in his direct appeal record. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State Ex Rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City
green
1 sentence1993Burk, supra. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, supra, makes clear that the trial court may consider factors other than reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable rate in determining a reasonable attorney fee under 12 O.S.1981 § 936. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.