Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hanna
neutral
2 sentences1993In State v. Hanna, 540 P.2d 1190 (Okl.Cr.1975), this Court ruled that violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 801, does not require the use of a dangerous weapon, per se, but that the way in which an instrument is used is the controlling factor in determining whether it is a dangerous weapon. 1993In State v. Hanna, 540 P.2d 1190 (Okl.Cr. 1975), this Court ruled that violation of 21 O.S. 1971 , § 801, does not require the use of a dangerous weapon, per se, but that the way in which an instrument is used is the controlling factor in determining whether it is a dangerous weapon. | 2 | 1981–1993 |
VASQUEZ v. STATE
green
2 sentences2026To do so, Judge Mills explained that some evidentiary foundation--beyond "suspicion or innuendo"--connecting Cantrell to Cardinal Point on January 20, 2017, was needed. ¶47 As the trial court recognized, a "quantum of evidence . . . is more than mere suspicion and innuendo[.]" Vasquez v. State , 2025 OK CR 1 564 P.3d 880 Gore v. State , 2005 OK CR 14 119 P.3d 1268 Gore, 2005 OK CR 14 Id. 2026To do so, Judge Mills explained that some evidentiary foundation--beyond "suspicion or innuendo"--connecting Cantrell to Cardinal Point on January 20, 2017, was needed. ¶47 As the trial court recognized, a "quantum of evidence . . . is more than mere suspicion and innuendo[.]" Vasquez v. State , 2025 OK CR 1 564 P.3d 880 Gore v. State , 2005 OK CR 14 119 P.3d 1268 Gore, 2005 OK CR 14 Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Gore v. State
green
2 sentences2026To do so, Judge Mills explained that some evidentiary foundation--beyond "suspicion or innuendo"--connecting Cantrell to Cardinal Point on January 20, 2017, was needed. ¶47 As the trial court recognized, a "quantum of evidence . . . is more than mere suspicion and innuendo[.]" Vasquez v. State , 2025 OK CR 1 564 P.3d 880 Gore v. State , 2005 OK CR 14 119 P.3d 1268 Gore, 2005 OK CR 14 Id. 2026To do so, Judge Mills explained that some evidentiary foundation--beyond "suspicion or innuendo"--connecting Cantrell to Cardinal Point on January 20, 2017, was needed. ¶47 As the trial court recognized, a "quantum of evidence . . . is more than mere suspicion and innuendo[.]" Vasquez v. State , 2025 OK CR 1 564 P.3d 880 Gore v. State , 2005 OK CR 14 119 P.3d 1268 Gore, 2005 OK CR 14 Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Matter of Estate of Maheras
green
1 sentence2008"The person who desires to overcome this presumption must then go forward to produce evidence showing either that (a) the confidential relationship had been severed before the critical events in controversy or (b) the will's maker actually received independent and competent advice about the disposition of his/her estate." In the Matter of the Estate of Maheras, 1995 OK 40 , ¶ 9, 897 P.2d 268, 273 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Cross v. Cross
green
1 sentence2001The case of Cross v. Cross, 559 S.W.2d 196 (Mo.Ct.App.1977), represents the other view. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences1970In Johnson v. State, 1 Okl.Cr. 321 , 97 P. 1059 , this Court ruled that error in overruling a proper challenge to a juror becomes grounds for reversal when the defendant is forced to use one of his peremptory challenges on said juror and that the defendant exhausted all his peremptory challenges, and that by reason of this an incompetent juror was forced upon him. 1970In Johnson v. State, 1 Okl.Cr. 321 , 97 P. 1059 , this Court ruled that error in overruling a proper challenge to a juror becomes grounds for reversal when the defendant is forced to use one of his peremptory challenges on said juror and that the defendant exhausted all his peremptory challenges, and that by reason of this an incompetent juror was forced upon him. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.