6 Oklahoma opinions name it 4 courts 1911–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morse v. Frederickgreen1 sentence2015Id. at 685 . ¶20 Drawing from the holding in Fraser , the Court instructed in Morse that two basic principles could be distilled from the Fraser case: (1) "that 'the constitutional rights of students in public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings' " and (2) "that the mode of analysis set forth in Tinker is not absolute." Morse , 551 U.S. at 404-05 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Hatch v. Atkinsongreen1 sentence1911Around this mode the requirement of actual delivery is the only substantial protection, and the courts should not weaken it by permitting the substitution of convenient and easily proven devices.” *138 In Hatch v. Atkinson, 56 Me. 324, 330, 331 ( 96 Am. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Central Coal & Lumber Co. v. Board of Equalization of Le Flore County
neutral
2 sentences2020The Court looked to the statutory definition of real property, which included buildings and improvements on the real property. ¶26 However, it is significant that, when rejecting the Penn Square assessor's argument, the Court distinguished the case of Central Coal & Lumber Co. v. Board of Equalization , 1918 OK 329 , 173 P. 442 . 2020The Court looked to the statutory definition of real property, which included buildings and improvements on the real property. ¶26 However, it is significant that, when rejecting the Penn Square assessor's argument, the Court distinguished the case of Central Coal & Lumber Co. v. Board of Equalization , 1918 OK 329 , 173 P. 442 . | 2 | 1992–2020 |
Buck v. Territory
green
2 sentences1959Buck v. Territory, 1 Okl.Cr. 517 , 98 P. 1017 ; Chambers v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 156 , 229 P. 646 ; Rice v. State, 66 Okl. 1959Buck v. Territory, 1 Okl.Cr. 517 , 98 P. 1017 ; Chambers v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 156 , 229 P. 646 ; Rice v. State, 66 Okl. | 2 | 1943–1959 |
Oklahoma Industries Authority v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2020Auth. v. Barnes , 1988 OK 98 , 769 P.2d 115 , a case dealing with the predecessor statutes. 2020Auth. v. Barnes , 1988 OK 98 , 769 P.2d 115 , a case dealing with the predecessor statutes. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Davis v. Taylor
neutral
2 sentences2020The Lease terms reinforce the argument that the Hotel-Conference Center is both not part of the realty and also not the subject of the same mode and rule of taxation. ¶29 EPWA cites Davis v. Taylor , 1944 OK 294 , 153 P.2d 231 . 2020The Lease terms reinforce the argument that the Hotel-Conference Center is both not part of the realty and also not the subject of the same mode and rule of taxation. ¶29 EPWA cites Davis v. Taylor , 1944 OK 294 , 153 P.2d 231 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 685 . ¶20 Drawing from the holding in Fraser , the Court instructed in Morse that two basic principles could be distilled from the Fraser case: (1) "that 'the constitutional rights of students in public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings' " and (2) "that the mode of analysis set forth in Tinker is not absolute." Morse , 551 U.S. at 404-05 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cunningham v. State
green
1 sentence1992As illustrative of the application of 68 O.S. § 2420 (and the predecessor statute), Assessor cites Central Coal & Lumber Company v. Board of Equalization, 70 Okl. 131 , 173 P. 442 (1918). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Conway v. State
green
1 sentence1959Buck v. Territory, 1 Okl.Cr. 517 , 98 P. 1017 ; Chambers v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 156 , 229 P. 646 ; Rice v. State, 66 Okl.Cr. 434 , 92 P.2d 857 ; Peters v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 175 , 110 P.2d 300 ." Gorum v. State, supra. In Conway v. State, Okl.Cr., 320 P.2d 419, 420 , in syllabus two, we said: "Objection of defendant to remarks of county attorney should be interposed at time of argument and a motion to exclude them from consideration of the jury should be made." Applying these rules to the argument complained of, the manner in which counsel sought to raise and preserve this objection is not suffic | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Peters v. State
neutral
2 sentences1959Buck v. Territory, 1 Okl.Cr. 517 , 98 P. 1017 ; Chambers v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 156 , 229 P. 646 ; Rice v. State, 66 Okl.Cr. 434 , 92 P.2d 857 ; Peters v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 175 , 110 P.2d 300 ." Gorum v. State, supra. In Conway v. State, Okl.Cr., 320 P.2d 419, 420 , in syllabus two, we said: "Objection of defendant to remarks of county attorney should be interposed at time of argument and a motion to exclude them from consideration of the jury should be made." Applying these rules to the argument complained of, the manner in which counsel sought to raise and preserve this objection is not suffic 1959Buck v. Territory, 1 Okl.Cr. 517 , 98 P. 1017 ; Chambers v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 156 , 229 P. 646 ; Rice v. State, 66 Okl.Cr. 434 , 92 P.2d 857 ; Peters v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 175 , 110 P.2d 300 ." Gorum v. State, supra. In Conway v. State, Okl.Cr., 320 P.2d 419, 420 , in syllabus two, we said: "Objection of defendant to remarks of county attorney should be interposed at time of argument and a motion to exclude them from consideration of the jury should be made." Applying these rules to the argument complained of, the manner in which counsel sought to raise and preserve this objection is not suffic | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Chambers v. State
neutral
2 sentences1959Buck v. Territory, 1 Okl.Cr. 517 , 98 P. 1017 ; Chambers v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 156 , 229 P. 646 ; Rice v. State, 66 Okl. 1959Buck v. Territory, 1 Okl.Cr. 517 , 98 P. 1017 ; Chambers v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 156 , 229 P. 646 ; Rice v. State, 66 Okl. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Rice v. State
green
2 sentences1959Buck v. Territory, 1 Okl.Cr. 517 , 98 P. 1017 ; Chambers v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 156 , 229 P. 646 ; Rice v. State, 66 Okl.Cr. 434 , 92 P.2d 857 ; Peters v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 175 , 110 P.2d 300 ." Gorum v. State, supra. In Conway v. State, Okl.Cr., 320 P.2d 419, 420 , in syllabus two, we said: "Objection of defendant to remarks of county attorney should be interposed at time of argument and a motion to exclude them from consideration of the jury should be made." Applying these rules to the argument complained of, the manner in which counsel sought to raise and preserve this objection is not suffic 1959Buck v. Territory, 1 Okl.Cr. 517 , 98 P. 1017 ; Chambers v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 156 , 229 P. 646 ; Rice v. State, 66 Okl.Cr. 434 , 92 P.2d 857 ; Peters v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 175 , 110 P.2d 300 ." Gorum v. State, supra. In Conway v. State, Okl.Cr., 320 P.2d 419, 420 , in syllabus two, we said: "Objection of defendant to remarks of county attorney should be interposed at time of argument and a motion to exclude them from consideration of the jury should be made." Applying these rules to the argument complained of, the manner in which counsel sought to raise and preserve this objection is not suffic | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.