7 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1941–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Browning v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safetygreen1 sentence2007Id. at 1375. ¶ 12 The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, citing the Oklahoma Title Examination Standards, has held that testimony may correct a scrivener's error in the date of a notarized mortgage release. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. v. Atwood
green
1 sentence2016“Unless some significant purpose is accomplished by an additional formal requisite imposed by the donor, equitable relief from the rigid enforcement of such additional formality is available.” Id. at cmt. a. ¶ 26 We find no significance to the reference requirement in the Trust other than to ensure that Pierce did not inadvertently exercise that power of appointment. 4 Inadvertent appointment is not an issue in this case. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re JS
green
2 sentences2011(Emphasis added.) "Section 1912(d)'s 'active efforts' requirement, for which the State has the burden of proof, is a predicate finding of the trial court made before a termination case may proceed." In re J.S., 2008 OK CIV APP 15 , ¶5, 177 P.3d 590 , 591. 2011(Emphasis added.) "Section 1912(d)'s 'active efforts' requirement, for which the State has the burden of proof, is a predicate finding of the trial court made before a termination case may proceed." In re J.S., 2008 OK CIV APP 15 , ¶5, 177 P.3d 590 , 591. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Avard v. Leming
green
2 sentences2001Our opinion in Avard v. Leming, 1994 OK 121 , 889 P.2d 262 , which the Court of Civil Appeals relied on to reach its conclusion that appellants had waived any right to complain about the instructions, is thus distinguishable. 2001Our opinion in Avard v. Leming, 1994 OK 121 , 889 P.2d 262 , which the Court of Civil Appeals relied on to reach its conclusion that appellants had waived any right to complain about the instructions, is thus distinguishable. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence1984Williams v. State, 572 P.2d 257 (Okl.Cr.1977). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Luellen v. State
green
2 sentences1952We suggest that if this case is retried, that either this instruction or one of similar import be given.” The reference is to the instruction approved by this court in Luellen v. State, 64 Okla. 1952Cr. 382 , 81 P. 2d 323 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Wistar v. Whitewing
green
2 sentences1941See Carlisle v. State, supra; authorities cited in Wistar v. Whitewing, 189 Okla. 292 , 116 P. 2d 565, 570 ; Smucker v. Pennsylvania R. 1941See Carlisle v. State, supra; authorities cited in Wistar v. Whitewing, 189 Okla. 292 , 116 P. 2d 565, 570 ; Smucker v. Pennsylvania R. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
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.