6 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peters v. Oklahoma Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences1999See Peters v. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, 1976 OK 183 , 557 P.2d 908 . 1999See Peters v. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety, 1976 OK 183 , 557 P.2d 908 . | 1 | 1 |
Colorado v. Connellygreen2 sentences1994See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). 1994See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Santosky v. Kramer
green
1 sentence2005The United States Supreme Court decided in the Santosky case that a clear and convincing evidence standard was constitutionally required because the government’s interest in a preponderance standard was less than the interests of the parent and child in a higher standard and because the risk of error from using a preponderance standard was substantial. 455 U.S. at 758 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In re International Longshoremen's Ass'n
green
2 sentences2005Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. den. 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981). 2005Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. den. 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission
green
1 sentence2005Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. den. 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission
green
2 sentences2005Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. den. 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981). 2005Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. den. 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
cluster 550368
green
1 sentence1999Haynes, 917 F.2d at 451 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Addington v. Texas
green
2 sentences1980The Court found therefore that because of the weight and gravity of the individual’s interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding, “due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence,” (at 332, 99 S.Ct. at 1810 ), “[sjince the preponderance standard creates the risk of increasing the number of individuals erroneously committed.” At 331, 99 S.Ct. at 1809 . 1980The Court found therefore that because of the weight and gravity of the individual’s interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding, “due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence,” (at 332, 99 S.Ct. at 1810 ), “[sjince the preponderance standard creates the risk of increasing the number of individuals erroneously committed.” At 331, 99 S.Ct. at 1809 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.