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 1975–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hogg v. Oklahoma County Juvenile Bureaugreen2 sentences2013See also Hogg v. Oklahoma County Juvenile Bureau, 2012 OK 107 , 292 P.3d 29 . 132 In this case, State has never identified what other "child custody proceeding" would be involved here if the juvenile court's temporary placement of the Indian children with their mothers after the show cause hearing alone would exclude this proceeding from the definition of "foster care placement." To invoke the protections of the ICWA, the state proceeding 1) must involve an Indian child as defined by § 1908(4) of ICWA, and 2) must be a "child custody proceeding" as defined by ICWA. 2013See also Hogg v. Oklahoma County Juvenile Bureau, 2012 OK 107 , 292 P.3d 29 . 132 In this case, State has never identified what other "child custody proceeding" would be involved here if the juvenile court's temporary placement of the Indian children with their mothers after the show cause hearing alone would exclude this proceeding from the definition of "foster care placement." To invoke the protections of the ICWA, the state proceeding 1) must involve an Indian child as defined by § 1908(4) of ICWA, and 2) must be a "child custody proceeding" as defined by ICWA. | 1 | 1 |
Skrapka v. Bonnergreen2 sentences2013See Skrapka v. Bonner, 2008 OK 30, ¶ 17 , 187 P.3d 202, 210 ; Carignan v. State, 1970 OK 82, ¶ 10 , 469 P.2d 656, 659 . 2013See Skrapka v. Bonner, 2008 OK 30, ¶ 17 , 187 P.3d 202, 210 ; Carignan v. State, 1970 OK 82, ¶ 10 , 469 P.2d 656, 659 . | 1 | 1 |
Empson-Laviolette v. Cragogreen2 sentences2013Empson-Laviolette v. Crago, 280 Mich.App. 620 , 760 N.W.2d 793, 797 (2008); In re C.P., 181 N.C.App. 698 , 641 S.E.2d 13 (2007). €33 Based on the record before us, this proceeding does not meet the definition of the remaining "child custody proceedings" to which ICWA applies, i.e., termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, or adoptive placement. 2013Empson-Laviolette v. Crago, 280 Mich.App. 620 , 760 N.W.2d 793, 797 (2008); In re C.P., 181 N.C.App. 698 , 641 S.E.2d 13 (2007). €33 Based on the record before us, this proceeding does not meet the definition of the remaining "child custody proceedings" to which ICWA applies, i.e., termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, or adoptive placement. | 1 | 1 |
Craig v. Borengreen2 sentences1982At the show cause hearing, the court sustained the Appellee’s *296 motion to quash, prior to the introduction of any evidence, on the basis that 37 O.S.1971, §§ 241, 242 2 were held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 209 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 463 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 414 (1976). 1982At the show cause hearing, the court sustained the Appellee’s *296 motion to quash, prior to the introduction of any evidence, on the basis that 37 O.S.1971, §§ 241, 242 2 were held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 209 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 463 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 414 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re C.P.
green
1 sentence2013Empson-Laviolette v. Crago, 280 Mich.App. 620 , 760 N.W.2d 793, 797 (2008); In re C.P., 181 N.C.App. 698 , 641 S.E.2d 13 (2007). €33 Based on the record before us, this proceeding does not meet the definition of the remaining "child custody proceedings" to which ICWA applies, i.e., termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, or adoptive placement. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re CP
green
1 sentence2013Empson-Laviolette v. Crago, 280 Mich.App. 620 , 760 N.W.2d 793, 797 (2008); In re C.P., 181 N.C.App. 698 , 641 S.E.2d 13 (2007). €33 Based on the record before us, this proceeding does not meet the definition of the remaining "child custody proceedings" to which ICWA applies, i.e., termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, or adoptive placement. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Carignan v. State
green
2 sentences2013See Skrapka v. Bonner, 2008 OK 30, ¶ 17 , 187 P.3d 202, 210 ; Carignan v. State, 1970 OK 82, ¶ 10 , 469 P.2d 656, 659 . 2013See Skrapka v. Bonner, 2008 OK 30, ¶ 17 , 187 P.3d 202, 210 ; Carignan v. State, 1970 OK 82, ¶ 10 , 469 P.2d 656, 659 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Hamburger v. Fry
green
2 sentences2006The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, finding that the defendant’s representations to the court that (1) she could get the money, (2) she had already contacted a lender about a mortgage to pay the contract, and (3) she needed a few more days, constituted “sufficient cause.” Similarly, in Hamburger v. Fry, 1958 OK 287 , 338 P.2d 1088 , the Supreme Court noted that the rule of attributing an attorney’s negligence to his client for purposes of § 1031 was not applicable to term-time orders, and it vacated a default judgment simply because the defendant’s attorney failed to file an answer and appear 2006The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, finding that the defendant’s representations to the court that (1) she could get the money, (2) she had already contacted a lender about a mortgage to pay the contract, and (3) she needed a few more days, constituted “sufficient cause.” Similarly, in Hamburger v. Fry, 1958 OK 287 , 338 P.2d 1088 , the Supreme Court noted that the rule of attributing an attorney’s negligence to his client for purposes of § 1031 was not applicable to term-time orders, and it vacated a default judgment simply because the defendant’s attorney failed to file an answer and appear | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Regents of the State University v. Trapp, Auditor
green
1 sentence1980Regents of State University v. Trapp, Okl., 113 P. 910 (1911). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Ex Parte Grimes
neutral
2 sentences1976In Ex Parte Grimes et al., 1 Okl.Cr. 102 , 94 P. 668 (1908), the Supreme Court spoke at length of the distinction between a temporary injunction and a temporary restraining order. 1976In Ex Parte Grimes et al., 1 Okl.Cr. 102 , 94 P. 668 (1908), the Supreme Court spoke at length of the distinction between a temporary injunction and a temporary restraining order. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Sautbine v. Jones
green
2 sentences1975In Sautbine v. Jones, 161 Okl. 292 , 18 P.2d 871 (Okl.1933), at page 872, the Court said: “It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a proceeding to set aside a judgment rendered upon failure of one of the parties to appear is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed, unless it appears from the record that the trial court abused its discretion, (cases cited) “It is also the law in this state that failure to receive notice of the setting of the case does not of itself constitute a sufficient ground upon which to vacate a judgm 1975In Sautbine v. Jones, 161 Okl. 292 , 18 P.2d 871 (Okl.1933), at page 872, the Court said: “It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a proceeding to set aside a judgment rendered upon failure of one of the parties to appear is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed, unless it appears from the record that the trial court abused its discretion, (cases cited) “It is also the law in this state that failure to receive notice of the setting of the case does not of itself constitute a sufficient ground upon which to vacate a judgm | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.