51 Oklahoma opinions name it 4 courts 1972–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Conaghan v. Riverfield Country Day Schoolgreen2 sentences2016Conaghan v. Riverfield Country Day School, 2007 OK 60, ¶ 20 , 163 P.3d 567 , In Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home, this Court explained further: The separation-of-powers doctrine interdicts legislative intrusion upon the funcT tions assigned to the judiciary by the constitution. 2014See Puckett v. Cook, 1978 OK 108 , 586 P.2d 721 5 and Conaghan v. Riverfield Country Day School, 2007 OK 60 , 163 P.38d 557. 6 18 In Oklahoma State Chiropractic Independent Physicians Association v. Fallin, 2011 OK 102 , 290 P.3d 1 , this Court considered statutes 7 which attempted to change the burden of proof 8 used by the trial court when considering the medical reports of the IME's, as opposed to the medical reports of the other medical experts The statutes would have changed the burden of proof at the trial court level of the Workers' Compensation Court from preponderance of the evidence | 2 | 4 |
Oklahoma State Chiropractic Independent Physicians Ass'n v. Fallingreen2 sentences2012Physicians Ass'n v. Fallin, 2011 OK 102 , 290 P.3d 1 , 2011 WL 6382024 (petition for reh'g filed), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that portions of 85 0.S.2011 §§ 326, 329, and 332 violated the separation of powers doctrine. 2012Physicians Ass'n v. Fallin, 2011 OK 102 , 290 P.3d 1 , 2011 WL 6382024 (petition for reh'g filed), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that portions of 85 0.S.2011 §§ 326, 329, and 332 violated the separation of powers doctrine. | 2 | 3 |
Puckett v. Cookgreen2 sentences2014See Puckett v. Cook, 1978 OK 108 , 586 P.2d 721 5 and Conaghan v. Riverfield Country Day School, 2007 OK 60 , 163 P.38d 557. 6 18 In Oklahoma State Chiropractic Independent Physicians Association v. Fallin, 2011 OK 102 , 290 P.3d 1 , this Court considered statutes 7 which attempted to change the burden of proof 8 used by the trial court when considering the medical reports of the IME's, as opposed to the medical reports of the other medical experts The statutes would have changed the burden of proof at the trial court level of the Workers' Compensation Court from preponderance of the evidence 2014See Puckett v. Cook, 1978 OK 108 , 586 P.2d 721 5 and Conaghan v. Riverfield Country Day School, 2007 OK 60 , 163 P.38d 557. 6 18 In Oklahoma State Chiropractic Independent Physicians Association v. Fallin, 2011 OK 102 , 290 P.3d 1 , this Court considered statutes 7 which attempted to change the burden of proof 8 used by the trial court when considering the medical reports of the IME's, as opposed to the medical reports of the other medical experts The statutes would have changed the burden of proof at the trial court level of the Workers' Compensation Court from preponderance of the evidence | 2 | 2 |
LeCroy v. Hanlongreen2 sentences2010In LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S.W.2d 335, 342 (Tex.1986), the court held that filing fees and taxes may be imposed only for purposes relating to the operation and maintenance of the courts and may not be forwarded to the state’s general revenue fund. 2010In LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S.W.2d 335, 342 (Tex.1986), the court held that filing fees and taxes may be imposed only for purposes relating to the operation and maintenance of the courts and may not be forwarded to the state's general revenue fund. | 2 | 2 |
Westoak Industries, Inc. v. DeLeongreen2 sentences2014Division IV nonetheless followed its decision in Westoak Industries v. DeLeon, 2013 OK CIV APP 32 , 299 P.3d 878 , that held legislative attempts to prescribe standards of review for appellate courts violated the separation of powers doctrine. 2014Division IV nonetheless followed its decision in Westoak Industries v. DeLeon, 2013 OK CIV APP 32 , 299 P.3d 878 , that held legislative attempts to prescribe standards of review for appellate courts violated the separation of powers doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
Harvey v. Auto Plus of Woodwardgreen2 sentences2014According to Division IV, the only court-preseribed standard of review in effect at the time of Claimant's injury was the any-competent-evidence standard of review pronounced in Parks, We granted certiorari because Division I of the Court of Civil Appeals reached the opposite conclusion from Westoak in Harvey v. Auto Plus of Woodward, 2012 OK CIV APP 92 , 287 P.3d 410 . {38 In the recent case of Kentucky Fried Chicken of McAlester v. Snell, 2014 OK 35 , 345 P.3d 351 , this Court held that the Legislature did not violate the separation of powers doctrine in prescribing the clear weight of the e 2014According to Division IV, the only court-preseribed standard of review in effect at the time of Claimant's injury was the any-competent-evidence standard of review pronounced in Parks, We granted certiorari because Division I of the Court of Civil Appeals reached the opposite conclusion from Westoak in Harvey v. Auto Plus of Woodward, 2012 OK CIV APP 92 , 287 P.3d 410 . {38 In the recent case of Kentucky Fried Chicken of McAlester v. Snell, 2014 OK 35 , 345 P.3d 351 , this Court held that the Legislature did not violate the separation of powers doctrine in prescribing the clear weight of the e | 1 | 2 |
Ford v. Board of Tax-Roll Correctionsgreen2 sentences2014In other words, executive privilege is not just a vestige of common law, but is an inherent power of the Governor. 1 18 In Ford v. Board of Tax-Roll Corrections, 1967 OK 90 , T21, 481 P.2d 428 . 428, this Court recognized that inherent powers are reflected in the separation of powers clause in Article 4, § 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution. 2014In other words, executive privilege is not just a vestige of common law, but is an inherent power of the Governor. ¶13 In Ford v. Board of Tax-Roll Corrections , 1967 OK 90, ¶ 21 , 431 P.2d 423, 428 , this Court recognized that inherent powers are reflected in the separation of powers clause in Article 4, § 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution. | 1 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Schneider v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2004The court in Department of Transportation then applied a separation of powers analysis used by the Kansas Supreme Court in Schneider v. Bennett, 547 P.2d 786 (Kan. 1976). 2004Id. | 1 | 2 |
Threadgill v. Cross, Secretary of Stategreen2 sentences1994Threadgill v. Cross, 26 Okla. 403 , 109 P. 558 (1910). 8 With the 1973 statutory change, exception to the Threadgill rule of withholding pre-election determination of the constitutionality of the contents of a proposed legislative measure was carved out in In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Oklahoma, 534 P.2d 3 (Okla.1975). 1994Threadgill v. Cross, 26 Okla. 403 , 109 P. 558 (1910). [8] *785 With the 1973 statutory change, exception to the Threadgill rule of withholding pre-election determination of the constitutionality of the contents of a proposed legislative measure was carved out in In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Oklahoma, 534 P.2d 3 (Okla. 1975). | 1 | 2 |
Bowsher v. Synargreen2 sentences2024Because the statutes authorized two legislators to perform the executive function of controlling the management of government-owned corporations, the Court found that they violated the separation-of-powers doctrine. ¶4 In Bowsher v. Synar , 478 U.S. 714 (1986), the Supreme Court considered an Act designed to eliminate the federal budget deficit. 2024The separation-of-powers doctrine demands that once the Legislature "makes its choice in enacting legislation, its participation ends." Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 733. | 1 | 1 |
Luebbers v. Money Store, Inc.green2 sentences2023Bd. of Assessment Appeals , 44 A.3d 3, 7 (Pa. 2012) ("While the General Assembly necessarily must attempt to interpret the Constitution in carrying out its duties, the judiciary is not bound to the 'legislative judgment concerning the proper interpretation of constitutional terms.'" (citation omitted)); Luebbers v. Money Store, Inc ., 40 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Ark. 2001) ("An act of the General Assembly violates the separation-of-powers doctrine when it deprives the courts of the power to decide a judicial question."); Richardson v. Hare , 160 N.W.2d 883, 886 (Mich. 1968) (rejecting "the proposition 2023Bd. of Assessment Appeals , 44 A.3d 3, 7 (Pa. 2012) ("While the General Assembly necessarily must attempt to interpret the Constitution in carrying out its duties, the judiciary is not bound to the 'legislative judgment concerning the proper interpretation of constitutional terms.'" (citation omitted)); Luebbers v. Money Store, Inc ., 40 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Ark. 2001) ("An act of the General Assembly violates the separation-of-powers doctrine when it deprives the courts of the power to decide a judicial question."); Richardson v. Hare , 160 N.W.2d 883, 886 (Mich. 1968) (rejecting "the proposition | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Secretary of Stategreen2 sentences2023Bd. of Assessment Appeals , 44 A.3d 3, 7 (Pa. 2012) ("While the General Assembly necessarily must attempt to interpret the Constitution in carrying out its duties, the judiciary is not bound to the 'legislative judgment concerning the proper interpretation of constitutional terms.'" (citation omitted)); Luebbers v. Money Store, Inc ., 40 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Ark. 2001) ("An act of the General Assembly violates the separation-of-powers doctrine when it deprives the courts of the power to decide a judicial question."); Richardson v. Hare , 160 N.W.2d 883, 886 (Mich. 1968) (rejecting "the proposition 2023Bd. of Assessment Appeals , 44 A.3d 3, 7 (Pa. 2012) ("While the General Assembly necessarily must attempt to interpret the Constitution in carrying out its duties, the judiciary is not bound to the 'legislative judgment concerning the proper interpretation of constitutional terms.'" (citation omitted)); Luebbers v. Money Store, Inc ., 40 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Ark. 2001) ("An act of the General Assembly violates the separation-of-powers doctrine when it deprives the courts of the power to decide a judicial question."); Richardson v. Hare , 160 N.W.2d 883, 886 (Mich. 1968) (rejecting "the proposition | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Pruittgreen2 sentences2023Bd. of Assessment Appeals , 44 A.3d 3, 7 (Pa. 2012) ("While the General Assembly necessarily must attempt to interpret the Constitution in carrying out its duties, the judiciary is not bound to the 'legislative judgment concerning the proper interpretation of constitutional terms.'" (citation omitted)); Luebbers v. Money Store, Inc ., 40 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Ark. 2001) ("An act of the General Assembly violates the separation-of-powers doctrine when it deprives the courts of the power to decide a judicial question."); Richardson v. Hare , 160 N.W.2d 883, 886 (Mich. 1968) (rejecting "the proposition 2023Bd. of Assessment Appeals , 44 A.3d 3, 7 (Pa. 2012) ("While the General Assembly necessarily must attempt to interpret the Constitution in carrying out its duties, the judiciary is not bound to the 'legislative judgment concerning the proper interpretation of constitutional terms.'" (citation omitted)); Luebbers v. Money Store, Inc ., 40 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Ark. 2001) ("An act of the General Assembly violates the separation-of-powers doctrine when it deprives the courts of the power to decide a judicial question."); Richardson v. Hare , 160 N.W.2d 883, 886 (Mich. 1968) (rejecting "the proposition | 1 | 1 |
Independent School District No. 1 of Oklahoma County v. Scottgreen2 sentences2021See Independent School District No. 1 of Oklahoma County v. Scott , 2000 OK CIV APP 121, ¶22 , 15 P.3d 1244 . 12 ¶8 Okla. 2021See Independent School District No. 1 of Oklahoma County v. Scott , 2000 OK CIV APP 121, ¶22 , 15 P.3d 1244 . 12 ¶8 Okla. | 1 | 1 |
| Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| VANDELAY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC v. FALLINgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alexander v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Owings v. Pool Well Servicegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Strickland v. Washingtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rathke v. MacFarlanegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ethics Commission v. Cullisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Spitznas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bonney v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Helms v. Secretary of the Treasurygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Peebly v. Childersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Legislative Research Commission Ex Rel. Prather v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bynum v. Strain
green
2 sentences2023Human Serv. v. Malibie , 1981 OK 18 630 P.2d 310 KUEHN, J., SPECIALLY CONCURRING: ¶1 I agree with the Majority that issue preclusion does not bar the courts from hearing this case. ¶2 I also agree with the Majority that the separation of powers clause does not prevent this Court from interpreting the meaning of "actual daily cost." Section 38 does not give the State Auditor authority to define "actual daily cost" Bynum v. Strain , 1923 OK 596 218 P. 883 ¶3 It is important to understand that in interpreting the ambiguous statutory term, this Court's interpretation is not intended to direct the 2023Human Serv. v. Malibie , 1981 OK 18 630 P.2d 310 KUEHN, J., SPECIALLY CONCURRING: ¶1 I agree with the Majority that issue preclusion does not bar the courts from hearing this case. ¶2 I also agree with the Majority that the separation of powers clause does not prevent this Court from interpreting the meaning of "actual daily cost." Section 38 does not give the State Auditor authority to define "actual daily cost" Bynum v. Strain , 1923 OK 596 218 P. 883 ¶3 It is important to understand that in interpreting the ambiguous statutory term, this Court's interpretation is not intended to direct the | 3 | 2000–2023 |
Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home
green
2 sentences2014Rather, it prohibits the Legislature from affording any one form of proof an elevated standard over similar evidence presented, thus robbing "that tribunal of its independent power to establish impairment or disability within the range of received competent evidence." Yocum at 130 P.3d 213, 220-221 . [emphasis added] 4 ¶7 Westoak, supra, cites several cases which are cited as persuasive authority for finding a separation of powers violation. 2014Rather, it prohibits the Legislature from affording any one form of proof an elevated standard over similar evidence presented, thus robbing "that tribunal of its independent power to establish impairment or disability within the range of received competent evidence." Yocum at 130 P.3d 213, 220-221 . [emphasis added] 4 *354 T7 WestOak, supra, cites several cases which are cited as persuasive authority for finding a separation of powers violation. | 3 | 2011–2014 |
Bailey v. State Board of Public Affairs
green
2 sentences1992Bailey v. State Board of Public Affairs, 194 Okl. 495 , 153 P.2d 235 (1944). 1990Also see Legislative Research Com'n. v. Brown, 665 S.W. 2d 907 , 923 (Ky. 1984) in which the court reached a like conclusion. ¶ 24 Having concluded that the "unless otherwise provided by law" language does not itself confer upon the Legislature the power to make executive appointments, we next determine whether the Separation of Powers principle itself would allow such appointments. ¶ 25 As noted earlier, in Bailey v. State Board of Public Affairs, 153 P.2d 235 (Okla. 1945), the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that the policy declared by the Legislature relating to the transfer of functions, | 3 | 1984–1992 |
DUTTON v. CITY OF MIDWEST CITY
green
2 sentences2023Dutton v. City of Midwest City , 2015 OK 51 353 P.3d 532 Id . 2023Dutton v. City of Midwest City , 2015 OK 51 353 P.3d 532 Id . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State Ex Rel. Haskell v. Huston
green
2 sentences2018Haskell v. Huston , 1908 OK 157 , ¶ 75, 21 Okl. 782 , 97 P. 982 , 995. ¶8 Even were it possible for this Court to create an appellate remedy without doing violence to the doctrine of separation of powers, it could not be done by extraordinary writ without doing violence to our jurisprudence in those two areas. 2018Haskell v. Huston , 1908 OK 157 , ¶ 75, 21 Okl. 782 , 97 P. 982 , 995. ¶8 Even were it possible for this Court to create an appellate remedy without doing violence to the doctrine of separation of powers, it could not be done by extraordinary writ without doing violence to our jurisprudence in those two areas. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Board of Trustees v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Edmondson v. Pearce
green
2 sentences2011Additionally, the Chiropractors correctly point out that declaratory relief may be sought in an original action in this Court, citing Edmondson v. Pearce, 2004 OK 23 , 91 P.3d 605 . ¶ 4 The Chiropractors also claim that these provisions violate the separation-of-powers clause in the Oklahoma Constitution (Art. 2011Additionally, the Chiropractors correctly point out that declaratory relief may be sought in an original action in this Court, citing Edmondson v. Pearce, 2004 OK 23 , 91 P.3d 605 . ¶ 4 The Chiropractors also claim that these provisions violate the separation-of-powers clause in the Oklahoma Constitution (Art. | 2 | 2009–2011 |
Dickson v. State
green
2 sentences1994Threadgill v. Cross, 26 Okla. 403 , 109 P. 558 (1910). 8 With the 1973 statutory change, exception to the Threadgill rule of withholding pre-election determination of the constitutionality of the contents of a proposed legislative measure was carved out in In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Oklahoma, 534 P.2d 3 (Okla.1975). 1994Threadgill v. Cross, 26 Okla. 403 , 109 P. 558 (1910). [8] *785 With the 1973 statutory change, exception to the Threadgill rule of withholding pre-election determination of the constitutionality of the contents of a proposed legislative measure was carved out in In re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman, Oklahoma, 534 P.2d 3 (Okla. 1975). | 2 | 1992–1994 |
In Re County Com'rs of Counties Comprising Seventh Judicial Dist.
green
2 sentences1990In reaching this conclusion, the Court specifically noted that the Separation of Powers Clause required separation among the branches of Government "except as provided in this Constitution." ¶ 28 In Federalist Paper No. 47, James Madison discusses the separation of powers doctrine, quoting Montesquieu's Dissertation on the Spirit of the Laws ; the same work our State Supreme Court relied on in In re County Commissioners, 98 P. 557 (Okla. 1908). 1989As noted above, the Oklahoma Supreme Court in In re County Com'rs, 98 P. 557 , 561-562 (Okla. 1908), specifically held that the fixing of a term of office is a legislative function. ¶ 17 As fixing a term of office is a legislative function, and as the statutes in question merely define terms of office, the statutes neither violate the separation of powers doctrine, nor the Governor's appointment powers. ¶ 18 It is, therefore, the official opinion of the Attorney General that the provisions of 8 O.S. 203 (1988); 59 O.S. 1203 (1988), and 59 O.S. 1455 (1988), which provide that various terms of e | 2 | 1989–1990 |
State Ex Rel. York v. Turpen
green
2 sentences1987York v. Turpen, 681 P.2d 763 (Okla. 1984), this Court noted that the import of the separation of powers doctrine was to prevent the imposition of the will of one branch upon the decision making areas rightly reposed in another. 1987York v. Turpen, 681 P.2d 763 (Okla.1984), this Court noted that the import of the separation of powers doctrine was to prevent the imposition of the will of one branch upon the decision making areas rightly reposed in another. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
United States v. Klein
green
1 sentence2026In United States v. Klein , 80 U.S. 128 (1871), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot pass a law that dictates how courts should decide cases. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. STATE ex rel. OKLA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
neutral
1 sentence2023Board of County Commissioners of County of Seminole v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections , 2021 OK CIV APP 33 499 P.3d 33 57 O.S. § 38 We note, parenthetically, that DOC's prevailing argument in Seminole wherein it argued that the State Auditor had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between counties and DOC for reimbursement claims contradicts its argument here that "asking the judiciary to interpret a statute does not create a separation of powers conflict with the Auditor's § 38 duties." The separation of powers clause does not bar this Court from exercising jurisdiction to determine the | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State Ex Rel. Department of Human Services v. Malibie
green
2 sentences2023Human Serv. v. Malibie , 1981 OK 18 630 P.2d 310 KUEHN, J., SPECIALLY CONCURRING: ¶1 I agree with the Majority that issue preclusion does not bar the courts from hearing this case. ¶2 I also agree with the Majority that the separation of powers clause does not prevent this Court from interpreting the meaning of "actual daily cost." Section 38 does not give the State Auditor authority to define "actual daily cost" Bynum v. Strain , 1923 OK 596 218 P. 883 ¶3 It is important to understand that in interpreting the ambiguous statutory term, this Court's interpretation is not intended to direct the 2023Human Serv. v. Malibie , 1981 OK 18 630 P.2d 310 KUEHN, J., SPECIALLY CONCURRING: ¶1 I agree with the Majority that issue preclusion does not bar the courts from hearing this case. ¶2 I also agree with the Majority that the separation of powers clause does not prevent this Court from interpreting the meaning of "actual daily cost." Section 38 does not give the State Auditor authority to define "actual daily cost" Bynum v. Strain , 1923 OK 596 218 P. 883 ¶3 It is important to understand that in interpreting the ambiguous statutory term, this Court's interpretation is not intended to direct the | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Clark v. Carter
green
2 sentences2023The Legislature, however, failed to define the method or manner in which the State Auditor shall determine the "actual daily cost." We have said that "by failing to define the limits of [the State Auditor's] duties and to prescribe the manner of [her] performance, [she] is left to [her] own judgment in the discharge of [her] duties imposed." Clark v. Carter , 1922 OK 106 , 209 P. 932, 938 . ¶21 The State Auditor contends that because 57 O.S. § 38 confers on her a discretionary executive duty to determine the "actual daily cost," district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction in adjudicating 2023The Legislature, however, failed to define the method or manner in which the State Auditor shall determine the "actual daily cost." We have said that "by failing to define the limits of [the State Auditor's] duties and to prescribe the manner of [her] performance, [she] is left to [her] own judgment in the discharge of [her] duties imposed." Clark v. Carter , 1922 OK 106 , 209 P. 932, 938 . ¶21 The State Auditor contends that because 57 O.S. § 38 confers on her a discretionary executive duty to determine the "actual daily cost," district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction in adjudicating | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Board of Com'rs of Grant County v. Comstock
neutral
2 sentences2021The attempt to interfere with the performance of a purely discretionary act violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine); Board of Commissioners of Grant County v. Comstock , 1932 OK 846, ¶¶11-17 , 17 P.2d 501 (Legislature vested in County Commissioners power to maintain and repair county roads. 2021The attempt to interfere with the performance of a purely discretionary act violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine); Board of Commissioners of Grant County v. Comstock , 1932 OK 846, ¶¶11-17 , 17 P.2d 501 (Legislature vested in County Commissioners power to maintain and repair county roads. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Smith v. Department of Ins. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Etheridge v. Medical Center Hospitals green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Judd v. Drezga
green
1 sentence2019Judd v. Drezga , 103 P.3d 135 (Utah 2004) (statutory cap of $250,000 on noneconomic damages did not violate constitutional open courts clause, equal protection, due process, right to a jury trial or a separation of powers doctrine). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Pulliam v. Coastal Emergency Services of Richmond, Inc. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In Re Adoption of the 2007 Revisions to the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Sollenberger v. AA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN OF McALESTER v. SNELL green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Pierce v. Underwood green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Murphy v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| In Re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642 green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Oklahomans for Modern Alcoholic Beverage Controls, Inc. v. Shelton green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State Ex Rel. Hensley v. Eubanks neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Forbes v. United States green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc. v. Braun green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Jones v. Freeman green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Jones v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Oyler v. Boles green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Bland v. United States green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| United States v. Jerome T. Bland green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Allen v. City of Mobile green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Meyer v. Weil green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| In Re Supreme Court Adjudication of Initiative Petitions in Norman green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| City of Clinton Ex Rel. Richardson v. Cornell neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Clarke v. United States green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.