Clause bar (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

Clause bar in Oklahoma

6 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2015 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Crawford v. Washingtongreen
scotus · 2004 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2006–2011
2 sentences

2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at

2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at

33
Tennessee v. Streetgreen
scotus · 1985 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2010–2011
2 sentences

2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at

2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at

12
Andrew v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at

2011Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 31 , 164 P.3d 176, 189 (" Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ("The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted."); Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (The nonhearsay aspect of the codefendant's confession-not to prove what happened at

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State Ex Rel. Town of Pryor v. Williamson green
okla · 1959
2 sentences

2015First, it relied in part on son, 1959 OK 207 , 347 P.2d 204 , which is discredited.

2015First, it relied in part on son, 1959 OK 207 , 347 P.2d 204 , which is discredited.

12015–2015
Coursey v. Fairchild green
okla · 1967
2 sentences

1983Coursey v. Fairchild, supra, and Rives v. Mincks Hotel Co., 167 Okl. 500 , 30 P.2d 911 [1934], A mortgage provision by which any incident of the borrower’s title is surrendered— however slightly — to the will of the lender — directly or obliquely — must be deemed to contravene all the basic concepts applied in equity to a land security transaction.

1983Coursey v. Fairchild, supra, and Rives v. Mincks Hotel Co., 167 Okl. 500 , 30 P.2d 911 [1934].

11983–1983
Rives v. Mincks Hotel Co. green
okla · 1934
2 sentences

1983Coursey v. Fairchild, supra, and Rives v. Mincks Hotel Co., 167 Okl. 500 , 30 P.2d 911 [1934].

1983Coursey v. Fairchild, supra, and Rives v. Mincks Hotel Co., 167 Okl. 500 , 30 P.2d 911 [1934].

11983–1983
Brown v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. neutral
okla · 1925
1 sentence

1938Co., supra, involved a cancellation clause, and upon close examination it appears that the clause in the policy was materially different from the clause in the standard form.

11938–1938

Where else courts name it

OH 44 (1991–2026) TX 42 (1960–2025) IL 24 (1902–2019) NY 22 (1901–2015) CA 17 (1931–2024) MO 15 (1905–2025) GA 11 (2005–2026) NM 10 (2006–2022) MA 9 (1886–2016) WA 9 (1989–2019) CO 8 (1991–2026) IN 8 (1881–2020) MI 7 (1903–2022) PA 7 (1978–2016) OK 6 (1938–2015) NC 6 (1913–2013) TN 6 (2010–2016) LA 5 (1978–2010) NE 5 (1917–2006) WI 5 (1991–2026) KY 5 (1914–2013) AL 5 (1999–2015) OR 5 (1993–2021) IA 5 (1901–2019) HI 4 (2005–2010) KS 3 (1936–2016) ID 3 (2004–2019) MD 3 (1981–2005) UT 3 (2006–2022) VA 3 (1985–2015) FL 2 (2006–2016) MN 2 (2005–2008) MS 2 (1967–2016) DC 2 (2009–2009) SD 2 (2004–2005) NV 2 (2012–2012) NJ 2 (2007–2008) AR 2 (1962–2006)

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