proceedings error in Oklahoma

51 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1905–2011 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 (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Parker v. Elamgreen okla · 1992 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–1997 2 sentences 1997Brumark Corp. v. Corporation Com’n, 924 P.2d 296 (Okl.App.1996), citing Parker v. Elam, 829 P.2d 677, 682 (OM.1992), Robert L. 1996Parker v. Elam, 829 P.2d 677, 682 (Okla.1992); Robert L.	2	2
United States v. Yaya Kone, Feranba Keita, Noha Fofanagreen ca6 · 2002 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011In United States v. Kone, 307 F.3d 430, 441-48 (6th Cir.2002), the Sixth Cireuit Court of Appeals determined that structural error had not occurred when the trial judge was absent during jury deliberations and the return of the verdict.	1	1
Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co.green · 1895 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973 2 sentences 1973See also Dean v. Dean, 136 Or. 694 , 300 P. 1027 , 86 A.L.R. 79 (also cited in the Am.Jur. footnote), where the Court said (p. 1029), quoting from Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co., 28 Or. 9 , 40 P. 406, 1014, 1015 , 52 Am.St.Rep. 759 : “ ‘It (a consent decree) is,’ says Mr. Gibson, in his excellent treatise entitled ‘suits in Chancery’ (section 558), ‘in the nature of a solemn contract, and is in effect an admission by the parties that the decree is a just determination of their rights upon the real facts of the case, had such been proved. 1973See also Dean v. Dean, 136 Or. 694 , 300 P. 1027 , 86 A.L.R. 79 (also cited in the Am.Jur. footnote), where the Court said (p. 1029), quoting from Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co., 28 Or. 9 , 40 P. 406, 1014, 1015 , 52 Am.St.Rep. 759 : “ ‘It (a consent decree) is,’ says Mr. Gibson, in his excellent treatise entitled ‘suits in Chancery’ (section 558), ‘in the nature of a solemn contract, and is in effect an admission by the parties that the decree is a just determination of their rights upon the real facts of the case, had such been proved.	1	1
State Ex Rel. Dean v. Deangreen or · 1931 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973 2 sentences 1973See also Dean v. Dean, 136 Or. 694 , 300 P. 1027 , 86 A.L.R. 79 (also cited in the Am.Jur. footnote), where the Court said (p. 1029), quoting from Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co., 28 Or. 9 , 40 P. 406, 1014, 1015 , 52 Am.St.Rep. 759 : “ ‘It (a consent decree) is,’ says Mr. Gibson, in his excellent treatise entitled ‘suits in Chancery’ (section 558), ‘in the nature of a solemn contract, and is in effect an admission by the parties that the decree is a just determination of their rights upon the real facts of the case, had such been proved. 1973See also Dean v. Dean, 136 Or. 694 , 300 P. 1027 , 86 A.L.R. 79 (also cited in the Am.Jur. footnote), where the Court said (p. 1029), quoting from Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co., 28 Or. 9 , 40 P. 406, 1014, 1015 , 52 Am.St.Rep. 759 : “ ‘It (a consent decree) is,’ says Mr. Gibson, in his excellent treatise entitled ‘suits in Chancery’ (section 558), ‘in the nature of a solemn contract, and is in effect an admission by the parties that the decree is a just determination of their rights upon the real facts of the case, had such been proved.	1	1
Robinson v. Illinois High School Ass'ngreen illappct · 1963 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972 2 sentences 1972See Robinson v. Illinois High School Association, 45 Ill. 1972See Robinson v. Illinois High School Association, 45 Ill.App.2d 277 , 195 N.E.2d 38 , cert. den. 379 U.S. 960 , 85 S.Ct. 647 , 13 L.Ed.2d 555 , reh. den. 380 U.S. 946 , 85 S.Ct. 1022 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 966 , and the authorities cited therein; 6 Am.Jur.2d, Associations and Clubs, § 37.	1	1
Rogers v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1965 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972 1 sentence 1972See Robinson v. Illinois High School Association, 45 Ill.App.2d 277 , 195 N.E.2d 38 , cert. den. 379 U.S. 960 , 85 S.Ct. 647 , 13 L.Ed.2d 555 , reh. den. 380 U.S. 946 , 85 S.Ct. 1022 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 966 , and the authorities cited therein; 6 Am.Jur.2d, Associations and Clubs, § 37.	1	1
Robinson v. Illinois High School Ass'ngreen scotus · 1965 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972 1 sentence 1972See Robinson v. Illinois High School Association, 45 Ill.App.2d 277 , 195 N.E.2d 38 , cert. den. 379 U.S. 960 , 85 S.Ct. 647 , 13 L.Ed.2d 555 , reh. den. 380 U.S. 946 , 85 S.Ct. 1022 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 966 , and the authorities cited therein; 6 Am.Jur.2d, Associations and Clubs, § 37.	1	1
Hanna Mining Co. v. District 2, Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'ngreen scotus · 1965 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972 1 sentence 1972See Robinson v. Illinois High School Association, 45 Ill.App.2d 277 , 195 N.E.2d 38 , cert. den. 379 U.S. 960 , 85 S.Ct. 647 , 13 L.Ed.2d 555 , reh. den. 380 U.S. 946 , 85 S.Ct. 1022 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 966 , and the authorities cited therein; 6 Am.Jur.2d, Associations and Clubs, § 37.	1	1
Ruark v. Coloradogreen scotus · 1965 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972 1 sentence 1972See Robinson v. Illinois High School Association, 45 Ill.App.2d 277 , 195 N.E.2d 38 , cert. den. 379 U.S. 960 , 85 S.Ct. 647 , 13 L.Ed.2d 555 , reh. den. 380 U.S. 946 , 85 S.Ct. 1022 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 966 , and the authorities cited therein; 6 Am.Jur.2d, Associations and Clubs, § 37.	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 (71)

Case	Cited	Years
Turk v. Page green okla · 1918 2 sentences 1939In Turk v. Page, 68 Okla. 275 , 174 P. 1081 , paragraph 1 of the syllabus states: “Where a decree is reversed and cause remanded, with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial, it stands the same, except as to questions of law settled by the proceedings in error, as if no trial had been had. 1939In Turk v. Page, 68 Okla. 275 , 174 P. 1081 , paragraph 1 of the syllabus states: “Where a decree is reversed and cause remanded, with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial, it stands the same, except as to questions of law settled by the proceedings in error, as if no trial had been had.	3	1937–1980
Buehl v. American Indemnity Co. neutral okla · 1919 2 sentences 1923Co. v. Wheeler, 75 Okla. 9 , 180 Pac 868 ; Helms v. Faulkner, 79 Okla. 308 , 193 Pac. 621 ; Canfield v. Bell, 47 Okla. 622 , 149 Pac. 1088 ; Landis v. Beal & Hines, 43 Okla. 287 , 142 Pac. 1109 ; Abbott v. Rodgers, 35 Okla. 189 , 128 Pac. 908 : Upton v. American Trust Co., 31 Okla. 456 , 122 Pac. 159 ..”' “Where the proceedings in error are by transcript of the record, the transcript must be certified as such by the clerk of the trial court.” Buell v. American Indemnity Co., 72 Oklahoma, 178 Pac. 884 . 1921Buell v. American Indemnity Co., 72 Oklahoma, 178 Pac. 884 .	3	1920–1923
Palmer v. Harris neutral · 1909 2 sentences 1937S. 1921, which provides: “ ‘Execution of the judgment or final or■der of any judicial tribunal, other than those enumerated in this article, may be stayed on such terms as may be prescribed by the court or a judge thereof, in which the proceedings in error are pending.’ “The Epley Case was followed by this court in the case of Palmer v. Harris, 23 Okla. 500 , 101 P. 852 , 138 Am. 1937S. 1921, which provides: “ ‘Execution of the judgment or final or■der of any judicial tribunal, other than those enumerated in this article, may be stayed on such terms as may be prescribed by the court or a judge thereof, in which the proceedings in error are pending.’ “The Epley Case was followed by this court in the case of Palmer v. Harris, 23 Okla. 500 , 101 P. 852 , 138 Am.	2	1925–1937
School Dist. No. 39, Kiowa Cty. v. Fisher green okla · 1909 2 sentences 1917Steele et al. v. Million et al., 49 Okla. 728 , 155 Pac. 495 ; Powell et al. v. First State Bank of Clinton, 56 Okla. 44 , 155 Pac. 500 ; Durant et al. v. Munford, 38 Okla. 552 , 134 Pac. 50 ; School Dist. v. Fisher, 23 Okla. 9 , 99 Pac. 646 ; Weisbender v. School Dist., 24 Okla. 173 , 103 Pac. 639 ; Wedd v. Gates, 15 Okla. 602 , 82 Pac. 808 ; Oberly et al. v. Harris et al., 63 Okla,. 258, 143 Pac. 663 . 1917Steele et al. v. Million et al., 49 Okla. 728 , 155 Pac. 495 ; Powell et al. v. First State Bank of Clinton, 56 Okla. 44 , 155 Pac. 500 ; Durant et al. v. Munford, 38 Okla. 552 , 134 Pac. 50 ; School Dist. v. Fisher, 23 Okla. 9 , 99 Pac. 646 ; Weisbender v. School Dist., 24 Okla. 173 , 103 Pac. 639 ; Wedd v. Gates, 15 Okla. 602 , 82 Pac. 808 ; Oberly et al. v. Harris et al., 63 Okla,. 258, 143 Pac. 663 .	2	1915–1917
Durant v. Munford neutral okla · 1913 2 sentences 1917Steele et al. v. Million et al., 49 Okla. 728 , 155 Pac. 495 ; Powell et al. v. First State Bank of Clinton, 56 Okla. 44 , 155 Pac. 500 ; Durant et al. v. Munford, 38 Okla. 552 , 134 Pac. 50 ; School Dist. v. Fisher, 23 Okla. 9 , 99 Pac. 646 ; Weisbender v. School Dist., 24 Okla. 173 , 103 Pac. 639 ; Wedd v. Gates, 15 Okla. 602 , 82 Pac. 808 ; Oberly et al. v. Harris et al., 63 Okla,. 258, 143 Pac. 663 . 1917Steele et al. v. Million et al., 49 Okla. 728 , 155 Pac. 495 ; Powell et al. v. First State Bank of Clinton, 56 Okla. 44 , 155 Pac. 500 ; Durant et al. v. Munford, 38 Okla. 552 , 134 Pac. 50 ; School Dist. v. Fisher, 23 Okla. 9 , 99 Pac. 646 ; Weisbender v. School Dist., 24 Okla. 173 , 103 Pac. 639 ; Wedd v. Gates, 15 Okla. 602 , 82 Pac. 808 ; Oberly et al. v. Harris et al., 63 Okla,. 258, 143 Pac. 663 .	2	1915–1917
Brumark Corp. v. Corporation Commission green oklacivapp · 1996 1 sentence 1997Brumark Corp. v. Corporation Com’n, 924 P.2d 296 (Okl.App.1996), citing Parker v. Elam, 829 P.2d 677, 682 (OM.1992), Robert L.	1	1997–1997
Bartlett v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Sapulpa green okla · 1984 1 sentence 1996Matter of Bartlett, supra. The precise and detailed requirements for the pleadings [motion, response, objections] and the proceedings at a hearing are not prescribed in detail in the probate code.	1	1996–1996
Creason v. Perry green okla · 1990 1 sentence 1993When it directs the assignment or delivery of documents * * *.” [Emphasis supplied.] 43 .The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 974.1 are: "Execution of the judgment or final order of any judicial tribunal, other than those enumerated in this article, may be stayed on such terms as may be prescribed by the court or judge thereof, in which the proceedings in error are pending_’’ [Emphasis supplied.] See Creason, supra note 7 at 716.	1	1993–1993
Gourley v. Jackson green okla · 1929 2 sentences 1980Turk v. Page, 68 Okl. 275 , 174 P. 1081 (1918); Gourley v. Jackson, 142 Okl. 74 , 285 P. 84 (1930). 1980Turk v. Page, 68 Okl. 275 , 174 P. 1081 (1918); Gourley v. Jackson, 142 Okl. 74 , 285 P. 84 (1930).	1	1980–1980
Githens v. Githens green colo · 1925 2 sentences 1973(In this connection, it is noticed that no transcript of the proceedings at the hearing on his motion to modify was filed.) At any rate, whether defendant received any benefit from the decree modification order so as to bring this case within the “at least where he has obtained a benefit from the act of the court” part of the above-quoted Am.Jur. statement of the rule, for which Miles v. Jones, 197 Okl. 684 , 173 P.2d 949 , is one of the cases cited in the Am.Jur. footnote “6”, it is our opinion that this case is a proper one for application of the rule and principles set forth in the other ca 1973(In this connection, it is noticed that no transcript of the proceedings at the hearing on his motion to modify was filed.) At any rate, whether defendant received any benefit from the decree modification order so as to bring this case within the “at least where he has obtained a benefit from the act of the court” part of the above-quoted Am.Jur. statement of the rule, for which Miles v. Jones, 197 Okl. 684 , 173 P.2d 949 , is one of the cases cited in the Am.Jur. footnote “6”, it is our opinion that this case is a proper one for application of the rule and principles set forth in the other ca	1	1973–1973
City of Duncan v. Sager neutral okla · 1970 1 sentence 1973That statutory provision, as amended in 1967, provides as follows: “Execution of the judgment or final order of any judicial tribunal, other than those enumerated in this article, may be stayed on such terms as may be prescribed by the court or judge thereof, in which the proceedings in error are pending, except that execution of a judgment or final order of any judicial tribunal against any county municipality, or other political subdivision of the State of Oklahoma is automatically stayed without execution of supersedeas bond until appeal has finally been determined.” Although not determinat	1	1973–1973
Miles v. Jones green okla · 1946 2 sentences 1973(In this connection, it is noticed that no transcript of the proceedings at the hearing on his motion to modify was filed.) At any rate, whether defendant received any benefit from the decree modification order so as to bring this case within the “at least where he has obtained a benefit from the act of the court” part of the above-quoted Am.Jur. statement of the rule, for which Miles v. Jones, 197 Okl. 684 , 173 P.2d 949 , is one of the cases cited in the Am.Jur. footnote “6”, it is our opinion that this case is a proper one for application of the rule and principles set forth in the other ca 1973(In this connection, it is noticed that no transcript of the proceedings at the hearing on his motion to modify was filed.) At any rate, whether defendant received any benefit from the decree modification order so as to bring this case within the “at least where he has obtained a benefit from the act of the court” part of the above-quoted Am.Jur. statement of the rule, for which Miles v. Jones, 197 Okl. 684 , 173 P.2d 949 , is one of the cases cited in the Am.Jur. footnote “6”, it is our opinion that this case is a proper one for application of the rule and principles set forth in the other ca	1	1973–1973
Taff v. State neutral okla · 1966 1 sentence 1970If a motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond is filed within the time allowed by statute and the defendant or his surety present a satisfactory excuse for the defendant’s failure to appear, then the granting of such a motion is within the sound judicial discretion of the court [Taff et al. v. State of Oklahoma (1966), Okl., 425 P.2d 970, 972 ], The transcript of the proceedings at the hearing on the first motion (which was overruled more than a month before the second motion was filed) discloses that the surety made no attempt whatsoever to show any excuse for the principal’s failure to	1	1970–1970
DeWees v. Cedarbaum green okla · 1963 1 sentence 1967It should perhaps be noted that at the time this appeal was lodged in this court (Sept. 15, 1965), under our holding in DeWees v. Cedarbaum, Okl., 381 P.2d 830 , it was possible for parties desiring to appeal to obtain an extension of the 20 day period after settlement of the casemade within which the proceedings in error in this court were required to be instituted.	1	1967–1967
Holbert v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1964 1 sentence 1965We observe that after the time had expired within which to make, serve and settle the casemade, and prior to filing of this attempted appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeals, the defendant could have secured extensions of time under the provisions of Title 12 O.S. § 962, the same providing: “(a) The court in which any case has been tried and finally determined, may, from time to time make orders extending the time for the making and serving of a case, or the filing of the proceedings in error, for good cause shown, but not beyond the period in which the proceedings in error may be filed in the	1	1965–1965
Kinnison v. State green oklacrimapp · 1961 1 sentence 1965We observe that after the time had expired within which to make, serve and settle the casemade, and prior to filing of this attempted appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeals, the defendant could have secured extensions of time under the provisions of Title 12 O.S. § 962, the same providing: “(a) The court in which any case has been tried and finally determined, may, from time to time make orders extending the time for the making and serving of a case, or the filing of the proceedings in error, for good cause shown, but not beyond the period in which the proceedings in error may be filed in the	1	1965–1965
Wanner v. Wanner neutral okla · 1959 2 sentences 1964In the case of Lacer v. Davis Hat Co., 189 Okl. 696 , 119 P.2d 850 , this Court said: “Where the purported appeal is by case-made and there is a failure to comply substantially with Section 532, O.S. 1931, 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 956, in furnishing a sufficient case-made and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure, the proceedings in error will be dismissed.” In the recent case of Wanner v. Wanner, Okl., 350 P.2d 241 , this Court discussed the two requirements of 12 O.S.1955, Supp. § 972, (now 12 O.S.1961 § 972) that an appeal by case-made be filed in this Court within twenty days from the d 1964In the case of Lacer v. Davis Hat Co., 189 Okl. 696 , 119 P.2d 850 , this Court said: "Where the purported appeal is by case-made and there is a failure to comply substantially with Section 532, O.S. 1931, 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 956, in furnishing a sufficient case-made and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure, the proceedings in error will be dismissed." *659 In the recent case of Wanner v. Wanner, Okl., 350 P.2d 241 , this Court discussed the two requirements of 12 O.S. 1955 , Supp. § 972, (now 12 O.S. 1961 § 972) that an appeal by case-made be filed in this Court within twenty days fr	1	1964–1964
Lacer v. Davis Hat Co. neutral okla · 1941 2 sentences 1964In the case of Lacer v. Davis Hat Co., 189 Okl. 696 , 119 P.2d 850 , this Court said: "Where the purported appeal is by case-made and there is a failure to comply substantially with Section 532, O.S. 1931, 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 956, in furnishing a sufficient case-made and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure, the proceedings in error will be dismissed." 659 In the recent case of Wanner v. Wanner, Okl., 350 P.2d 241 , this Court discussed the two requirements of 12 O.S. 1955 , Supp. § 972, (now 12 O.S. 1961 § 972) that an appeal by case-made be filed in this Court within twenty days fr 1964In the case of Lacer v. Davis Hat Co., 189 Okl. 696 , 119 P.2d 850 , this Court said: "Where the purported appeal is by case-made and there is a failure to comply substantially with Section 532, O.S. 1931, 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 956, in furnishing a sufficient case-made and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure, the proceedings in error will be dismissed." 659 In the recent case of Wanner v. Wanner, Okl., 350 P.2d 241 , this Court discussed the two requirements of 12 O.S. 1955 , Supp. § 972, (now 12 O.S. 1961 § 972) that an appeal by case-made be filed in this Court within twenty days fr	1	1964–1964
Harless v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1957 1 sentence 1961Ann. § 963, does not permit the Supreme Court to enter an order of extension of time to make and serve a case-made after the time for appeal has expired.” See from this Court bearing on the subject: May v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 165 , 73 P.2d 875 (2nd par. of syllabus); Harless v. State, Okl.Cr., 307 P.2d 878 .	1	1961–1961
Crutchfield v. Forrester neutral okla · 1939 2 sentences 1961The statutory provisions read: 12 O.S.A. § 962, as amended 1955, p. 140, § 1: “The court in which any case has been tried and finally determined, may, from time to time make orders extending the time for the making and serving of a case, or the filing of the proceedings in error, for good cause shown, but not beyond the period in which the proceedings in error may be filed in the appellate court; and in the exercise of judicial discretion the said court or judge, upon notice to the adverse party, and after hearing, may make such orders after the expiration of the time fixed in the previous ord 1961The statutory provisions read: 12 O.S.A. § 962, as amended 1955, p. 140, § 1: “The court in which any case has been tried and finally determined, may, from time to time make orders extending the time for the making and serving of a case, or the filing of the proceedings in error, for good cause shown, but not beyond the period in which the proceedings in error may be filed in the appellate court; and in the exercise of judicial discretion the said court or judge, upon notice to the adverse party, and after hearing, may make such orders after the expiration of the time fixed in the previous ord	1	1961–1961
May v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1937 2 sentences 1961Ann. § 963, does not permit the Supreme Court to enter an order of extension of time to make and serve a case-made after the time for appeal has expired.” See from this Court bearing on the subject: May v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 165 , 73 P.2d 875 (2nd par. of syllabus); Harless v. State, Okl.Cr., 307 P.2d 878 . 1961Ann. § 963, does not permit the Supreme Court to enter an order of extension of time to make and serve a case-made after the time for appeal has expired.” See from this Court bearing on the subject: May v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 165 , 73 P.2d 875 (2nd par. of syllabus); Harless v. State, Okl.Cr., 307 P.2d 878 .	1	1961–1961
George v. Robinson neutral okla · 1915	1	1941–1941
Ball v. Rankin green · 1909	1	1939–1939
Consolidated Steel & Wire Co. v. Burnham, Hanna, Munger & Co. neutral okla · 1899	1	1939–1939
McIntosh v. Lynch green okla · 1923	1	1939–1939
Davis v. Huth neutral wash · 1906	1	1938–1938
Watkins v. Dunbar green ill · 1925	1	1937–1937
Leitz v. J. E. Rayner & Co. neutral kan · 1887	1	1937–1937
Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America v. Trimm neutral alactapp · 1923	1	1937–1937
Lubritorium, Inc. v. Adams neutral okla · 1930	1	1936–1936
Griffin v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1932	1	1936–1936
Johnson v. Alexander neutral okla · 1915	1	1936–1936
Butler v. Butler neutral okla · 1927	1	1936–1936
Piersol v. State Ex Rel. County Atty. neutral okla · 1926	1	1932–1932
Schlingman v. Wells green okla · 1927	1	1932–1932
Oliver v. Kelly neutral okla · 1928	1	1932–1932
Timberlake v. Norris neutral okla · 1928	1	1932–1932
Bernert v. Bernert neutral okla · 1926	1	1932–1932
Shinn v. Oklahoma City Bldg. & Loan Ass'n neutral okla · 1928	1	1929–1929
Saxon v. Green neutral okla · 1928	1	1929–1929

Where else courts name it

OH 53 (1905–2025) OK 51 (1905–2011) CA 47 (1863–2026) IL 45 (1895–2026) NY 33 (1877–2021) TX 25 (1884–2025) WY 24 (1880–2006) FL 24 (1903–2018) KS 23 (1880–1980) NE 19 (1881–1987) MI 18 (1876–2021) IN 17 (1906–2019) PA 14 (1918–2025) LA 13 (1911–2024) SC 12 (1905–2023) AL 12 (1858–2009) WI 10 (1940–2025) GA 9 (1923–2022) WA 8 (1904–2021) MO 8 (1913–2018) MD 8 (1931–2006) OR 7 (1929–2025) CO 6 (1904–2024) AR 6 (1922–2014) MA 6 (1898–2023) VA 5 (1872–1918) MS 5 (1995–2024) NC 4 (1905–2025) MN 4 (1888–2001) NJ 4 (1952–2021) ME 4 (1953–2022) CT 3 (1979–2002) UT 3 (1992–2018) HI 3 (1913–2003) DC 3 (2011–2017) SD 3 (1932–2010) DE 2 (1972–2015) AZ 2 (1945–1989) IA 2 (1906–1924) MT 2 (1932–1956) KY 2 (1889–2022) AK 2 (1966–1981) RI 2 (1917–1992) WV 2 (1965–2003)

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