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 1977–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Joplin v. Elygreen2 sentences2007See Joplin v. Ely, 1961 OK 244 , 365 P.2d 735, 736 (referring to predecessor real party in interest statute to § 2017); see also Watford v. West, 2003 OK 84 , 78 P.3d 946 . 2007See Joplin v. Ely, 1961 OK 244 , 365 P.2d 735, 736 (referring to predecessor real party in interest statute to § 2017); see also Watford v. West, 2003 OK 84 , 78 P.3d 946 . | 2 | 2 |
Watford v. Westgreen2 sentences2007See Joplin v. Ely, 1961 OK 244 , 365 P.2d 735, 736 (referring to predecessor real party in interest statute to § 2017); see also Watford v. West, 2003 OK 84 , 78 P.3d 946 . 2007See Joplin v. Ely, 1961 OK 244 , 365 P.2d 735, 736 (referring to predecessor real party in interest statute to § 2017); see also Watford v. West, 2003 OK 84 , 78 P.3d 946 . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oklahoma Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. Nigh
neutral
2 sentences2000Oklahoma Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. Nigh, 513 P.2d 310 (Okl.1972). 1992Oklahoma Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. Nigh, 513 P.2d 310 (Okl.1972). | 3 | 1977–2000 |
Black Hawk Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp.
green
2 sentences2005Then it rejected the argument on its merits, applying Oklahoma Wildlife, noting, “Neither [defendant] claims that any judgment against them here might not protect them from further liability to others arising out of the same acts.” Id. at ¶24, 969 P.2d at 344 . ¶ 16 Similarly, Trinity does not claim, or even express a concern, that the judgment Caterpillar received fails to protect Trinity from a further action by Caterpillar’s insurance company or any other entity. 2005Then it rejected the argument on its merits, applying Oklahoma Wildlife, noting, "Neither [defendant] claims that any judgment against them here might not protect them from further liability to others arising out of the same acts." Id. at ¶ 24, 969 P.2d at 344 . ¶ 16 Similarly, Trinity does not claim, or even express a concern, that the judgment Caterpillar received fails to protect Trinity from a further action by Caterpillar's insurance company or any other entity. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lapkin v. Garland Bloodworth, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005As Caterpillar points out, the applicable rule on this matter was expressed in Lapkin v. Garland Bloodworth, Inc., 2001 OK CIV APP 29 , 23 P.3d 958 , in which a doctor settled a malpractice claim against him. 2005As Caterpillar points out, the applicable rule on this matter was expressed in Lapkin v. Garland Bloodworth, Inc., 2001 OK CIV APP 29 , 23 P.3d 958 , in which a doctor settled a malpractice claim against him. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Mainord v. Sharp
green
1 sentence1999Mainord v. Sharp, 1977 OK CIV APP 29 , 569 P.2d 546, 548 . . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.