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 1 courts 1906–1966 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery Web Co. v. Dieneltgreen2 sentences1918See, also, to same effect Montgomery-Web Co. v. Dienelt, 133 Pa. 585 , 19 Atl. 428 19 Am. 1918See, also, to same effect Montgomery-Web Co. v. Dienelt, 133 Pa. 585 , 19 Atl. 428 19 Am. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Mothersead
neutral
2 sentences1935In Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. New State Bank of Woodward, 124 Okla. 185 , 256 P. 43 , this court laid down the rule that: ‘‘Before a claim can be allowed as a preferred claim against the State Bank Commissioner in charge of an insolvent bank, it is necessary to establish, first, that the claim in question is a trust fund; and second, that the fund in some form was a part of the assets of the bank which passed into the hands of the Commissioner.” This rule was followed by this court in Thomas v. Mothersead, 128 Okla. 157 , 261 P. 363 . 1935In Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. New State Bank of Woodward, 124 Okla. 185 , 256 P. 43 , this court laid down the rule that: ‘‘Before a claim can be allowed as a preferred claim against the State Bank Commissioner in charge of an insolvent bank, it is necessary to establish, first, that the claim in question is a trust fund; and second, that the fund in some form was a part of the assets of the bank which passed into the hands of the Commissioner.” This rule was followed by this court in Thomas v. Mothersead, 128 Okla. 157 , 261 P. 363 . | 2 | 1931–1935 |
First State Bank of Bristow v. O'Bannon
neutral
2 sentences1935It reiterated this rule in First State Bank of Bristow v. O’Bannon, 130 Okla. 206 , 266 P. 472 , and again emphasized this rule in Mothersead v. Harris, 148 Okla. 285 , 298 P. 602 . 1935It reiterated this rule in First State Bank of Bristow v. O’Bannon, 130 Okla. 206 , 266 P. 472 , and again emphasized this rule in Mothersead v. Harris, 148 Okla. 285 , 298 P. 602 . | 2 | 1931–1935 |
Renegar v. Staples
green
1 sentence1966In Renegar v. Staples, Okl., 388 P.2d 867 , we held that in a case of equitable *516 cognizance, a general judgment of the trial court carries with it a finding of all the facts necessary to support it. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Estate of Coons
green
2 sentences1963Orphans’ allowance is not an interest sought in the property, but is a preferred claim against the estate and to be protected on grounds of public policy in like manner as the state of actual situs of personalty protects local creditors.” More recent application of the rule announced in this case may be observed in In Re Coon’s Estate, 107 Cal.App.2d 531 , 237 P.2d 291 . 1963Orphans’ allowance is not an interest sought in the property, but is a preferred claim against the estate and to be protected on grounds of public policy in like manner as the state of actual situs of personalty protects local creditors.” More recent application of the rule announced in this case may be observed in In Re Coon’s Estate, 107 Cal.App.2d 531 , 237 P.2d 291 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
In Re Pugh's Estate
green
2 sentences1963The case of In Re Pugh’s Estate, 22 Wash.2d 83 , 154 P.2d 308 , involved the propriety of granting a widow’s allowance to a nonresident widow, under a statute quite similar to Sec. 314 of our own probate code. 1963The case of In Re Pugh’s Estate, 22 Wash.2d 83 , 154 P.2d 308 , involved the propriety of granting a widow’s allowance to a nonresident widow, under a statute quite similar to Sec. 314 of our own probate code. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Mothersead v. Harris
neutral
2 sentences1935It reiterated this rule in First State Bank of Bristow v. O’Bannon, 130 Okla. 206 , 266 P. 472 , and again emphasized this rule in Mothersead v. Harris, 148 Okla. 285 , 298 P. 602 . 1935It reiterated this rule in First State Bank of Bristow v. O’Bannon, 130 Okla. 206 , 266 P. 472 , and again emphasized this rule in Mothersead v. Harris, 148 Okla. 285 , 298 P. 602 . | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. New State Bank of Woodward
green
2 sentences1935In Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. New State Bank of Woodward, 124 Okla. 185 , 256 P. 43 , this court laid down the rule that: ‘‘Before a claim can be allowed as a preferred claim against the State Bank Commissioner in charge of an insolvent bank, it is necessary to establish, first, that the claim in question is a trust fund; and second, that the fund in some form was a part of the assets of the bank which passed into the hands of the Commissioner.” This rule was followed by this court in Thomas v. Mothersead, 128 Okla. 157 , 261 P. 363 . 1935In Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. New State Bank of Woodward, 124 Okla. 185 , 256 P. 43 , this court laid down the rule that: ‘‘Before a claim can be allowed as a preferred claim against the State Bank Commissioner in charge of an insolvent bank, it is necessary to establish, first, that the claim in question is a trust fund; and second, that the fund in some form was a part of the assets of the bank which passed into the hands of the Commissioner.” This rule was followed by this court in Thomas v. Mothersead, 128 Okla. 157 , 261 P. 363 . | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Peoples State Bank v. Burlington State Bank
neutral
1 sentence1934In the case of People’s State Bank of Le Roy v. Burlington State Bank (Kan.) 277 P. 39 , the Supreme Court of Kansas considered an action by a bank to establish a preferred claim to assets in the hands of a receiver of a failed bank. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Shull v. Beasley
neutral
2 sentences1934In that case, the court held: “The sending by plaintiff of a draft on a third bank to the failed bank for ‘returns’ constituted the failed bank agent to collect and return the proceeds of collection, and the relation created was fiduciary in character; when the collection was made the proceeds constituted a trust fund, and the assets of the failed bank available for distribution among creditors were not increased; the proceeds of the collection were so used by the failed bank’s city correspondent that the estate of the failed bank, which came into the hands of the receiver from the corresponde 1934In that case, the court held: “The sending by plaintiff of a draft on a third bank to the failed bank for ‘returns’ constituted the failed bank agent to collect and return the proceeds of collection, and the relation created was fiduciary in character; when the collection was made the proceeds constituted a trust fund, and the assets of the failed bank available for distribution among creditors were not increased; the proceeds of the collection were so used by the failed bank’s city correspondent that the estate of the failed bank, which came into the hands of the receiver from the corresponde | 1 | 1934–1934 |
In Re Planters Mechanics Bank
neutral
1 sentence1931Thomas v. Mothersead, 128 Okla. 157 , 261 Pac. 363 ; First State Bank of Bristow et al. v. O’Bannon, 130 Okla. 206 , 260 Pac. 472 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Picklesimer v. Territory of Oklahoma
neutral
1 sentence1906Willoughby v. Weinberger, (Okla.) 79 Pac. 777 . | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.