safe rule in Oklahoma

7 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1897–1955 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Sipple v. Seaboard Air-Line Railway Co.green ga · 1922 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1955–1955 1 sentence 1955See Bank of Gauley v. Osenton, 92 W.Va. 1 , 114 S.E. 435, 437 , wherein the journal entry bore the same kind of endorsement and the court said: “The only safe rule is to hold that whether a judgment is one obtained by consent of the parties must appear from the face of the record.” There is no court reporter’s or stenographer’s transcript of any hearing at which this order or judgment was rendered, and nothing in the record to indicate any agreement or compromise between the parties, except in so far as such a thing may *212 be gleaned or fabricated from their pleadings.	1	1
Bank of Gauley v. Osentongreen wva · 1922 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1955–1955 1 sentence 1955See Bank of Gauley v. Osenton, 92 W.Va. 1 , 114 S.E. 435, 437 , wherein the journal entry bore the same kind of endorsement and the court said: “The only safe rule is to hold that whether a judgment is one obtained by consent of the parties must appear from the face of the record.” There is no court reporter’s or stenographer’s transcript of any hearing at which this order or judgment was rendered, and nothing in the record to indicate any agreement or compromise between the parties, except in so far as such a thing may *212 be gleaned or fabricated from their pleadings.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Sturgis v. State green oklacrimapp · 1909 2 sentences 1909Cr. 262 , 102 Pac. 57 , which case is almost identical with the case of appellant, and the decision of which case is controlling in this case, and the rule being laid by the court as follows: "The safe rule is to require some evidence of such acting together before such acts and declarations of others concerned in the commission of an offense are admitted in evidence when such acts were not committed or statements were not made in the presence of the defendant. 1909Cr. 262 , 102 P. 57 , which case is almost identical with the case of appellant, and the decision of which case is controlling in this case, and the rule being laid by the court as follows: `The safe rule is to require some evidence of such acting together before such acts and declarations of others concerned in the commission of an offense are admitted in evidence when such acts were not committed or statements were not made in the presence of the defendant.	2	1909–1909
Fitch v. Corbett green cal · 1883 2 sentences 1908(Com. v. Keeper of Prison, 2 Ashm. [Pa.] 227.) This doctrine is approved in a per curiam opinion in the Matter of Salvador Troia on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal. 152 , 28 P. 231 , Page 19 where the court adopts the above excerpt from the Pennsylvania case as part of its syllabus. 1908*This doctrine is approved in a per curiam opinion in the Matter of Salvador Troia on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal. 152 , 28 Pac. 231 , where the court adopts the above excerpt from the Pennsjdvania case as part of its syllabus.	2	1908–1908
In re Troia green cal · 1883 2 sentences 1908(Com. v. Keeper of Prison, 2 Ashm. [Pa.] 227.) This doctrine is approved in a per curiam opinion in the Matter of Salvador Troia on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal. 152 , 28 P. 231 , Page 19 where the court adopts the above excerpt from the Pennsylvania case as part of its syllabus. 1908*This doctrine is approved in a per curiam opinion in the Matter of Salvador Troia on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal. 152 , 28 Pac. 231 , where the court adopts the above excerpt from the Pennsjdvania case as part of its syllabus.	2	1908–1908
Gould v. Austin neutral wash · 1909 2 sentences 1953Between the time of making an oral statement as to matters pertaining to the cause, the findings, or judgment, the court may have changed its mind. * * And as was aptly said by the Supreme Court of Washington in Gould v. Austin (1909) 52 Wash. 457 , 100 P. 1029 : “ ‘ * * We think it a safe rule to hold that, when the court signs a written order, it shall be considered the evidence of its real and final act touching the subject immediately under consideration’ ”. 1953Between the time of making an oral statement as to matters pertaining to the cause, the findings, or judgment, the court may have changed its mind. * * And as was aptly said by the Supreme Court of Washington in Gould v. Austin (1909) 52 Wash. 457 , 100 P. 1029 : “ ‘ * * We think it a safe rule to hold that, when the court signs a written order, it shall be considered the evidence of its real and final act touching the subject immediately under consideration’ ”.	1	1953–1953
Mask v. State green oklacrimapp · 1909 1 sentence 1909Under these rules of law, the question now presents itself as to whether there is in the record any evidence that the defendant was concerned with the Holmes and McKinley in the sale of intoxicating liquor, except the testimony as to the statements of Holmes and McKinley to the witnesses who testified to such statements. * * * There is not one word of evidence in this record except hearsay which proves, or tends to prove, that the defendant was concerned with Holmes or McKinley in the sale of intoxicating liquors.' Page 66, 102 Pac. *Page 140 (3) That the court in affirming said judgment and s	1	1909–1909
Kelley v. Town of Fond du Lac green wis · 1872 1 sentence 1897(Kelly v. Fond du Lac, 31 Wis. 179 -186-7; Hawes v. Fox Lake, 33 Wis. 443 -444; Mathews v. Baraboo, 39 Wis. 677 ; Prideaux v. Mineral Point, 43 Wis. 523 ; James v. Portage, 48 Wis. 681 ; Carlright v. Belmont, 58 Wis. 373 .”) We think this a safe doctrine to follow and one that cannot be injurious to either the traveler or the city; and that the instruction as given was one which, under the circumstances, was likely to and did'mislead the jury, “and where inapplicable instructions are given which may have mislead the jury to the prejudice of the party complaining, the verdict cannot be permitte	1	1897–1897

Where else courts name it

KS 40 (1903–2024) TX 39 (1878–2010) MI 23 (1862–2026) AL 19 (1875–2026) IL 17 (1886–2025) CA 17 (1885–2025) NC 15 (1887–2011) PA 15 (1835–1978) MO 11 (1897–1973) NY 11 (1865–2012) GA 11 (1884–2022) IA 10 (1869–2021) NE 9 (1896–1997) MD 9 (1897–2013) MS 9 (1857–1983) OK 7 (1897–1955) LA 7 (1914–1995) KY 6 (1892–1932) SD 6 (1892–1982) OR 5 (1942–1999) IN 5 (1878–1909) MN 5 (1891–1987) WA 4 (1910–1955) AR 4 (1889–1941) WV 4 (1893–1965) FL 4 (1847–1992) WI 3 (1882–1952) ID 3 (1908–1933) MT 3 (1923–1987) ND 3 (1918–1937) NH 2 (1891–1928) VA 2 (1923–1992) AZ 2 (1912–1970) DE 2 (1938–1946) ME 2 (1903–1913) CT 2 (1993–2016) CO 2 (1902–1902) VT 2 (2007–2007) OH 2 (1908–1990) TN 2 (1920–1963) SC 2 (1934–1939)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check