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 2002–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure & Supervision v. Pinarocgreen2 sentences2017Oklahoma Bd. of Medical Licensure and Supervision v. Pinaroc , 2002 OK 20, ¶ 1 , 46 P.3d 114, 115-116 ("This matter is before us on a sua sponte inquiry into our appellate jurisdiction prior to a disposition on the merits of the appeal."); McSpadden v. Mahoney , 1964 OK 260 , 402 P.2d 656, 661 (Court concluded appeal was timely filed, denied the motion to dismiss, and ordered the case to proceed with briefing on the merits of the controversy). 2017Oklahoma Bd. of Medical Licensure and Supervision v. Pinaroc , 2002 OK 20, ¶ 1 , 46 P.3d 114, 115-116 ("This matter is before us on a sua sponte inquiry into our appellate jurisdiction prior to a disposition on the merits of the appeal."); McSpadden v. Mahoney , 1964 OK 260 , 402 P.2d 656, 661 (Court concluded appeal was timely filed, denied the motion to dismiss, and ordered the case to proceed with briefing on the merits of the controversy). | 2 | 2 |
McSpadden v. Mahoneygreen2 sentences2017Oklahoma Bd. of Medical Licensure and Supervision v. Pinaroc , 2002 OK 20, ¶ 1 , 46 P.3d 114, 115-116 ("This matter is before us on a sua sponte inquiry into our appellate jurisdiction prior to a disposition on the merits of the appeal."); McSpadden v. Mahoney , 1964 OK 260 , 402 P.2d 656, 661 (Court concluded appeal was timely filed, denied the motion to dismiss, and ordered the case to proceed with briefing on the merits of the controversy). 2017Oklahoma Bd. of Medical Licensure and Supervision v. Pinaroc , 2002 OK 20, ¶ 1 , 46 P.3d 114, 115-116 ("This matter is before us on a sua sponte inquiry into our appellate jurisdiction prior to a disposition on the merits of the appeal."); McSpadden v. Mahoney , 1964 OK 260 , 402 P.2d 656, 661 (Court concluded appeal was timely filed, denied the motion to dismiss, and ordered the case to proceed with briefing on the merits of the controversy). | 2 | 2 |
Burdick v. Independent School District No. 52green2 sentences2024Cty. , 1985 OK 49, n.10, 702 P.2d 48, 54 (A sua sponte analysis need only address what is dispositive for the issue pressed for review.); cf . 2024Cty. , 1985 OK 49, n.10, 702 P.2d 48, 54 (A sua sponte analysis need only address what is dispositive for the issue pressed for review.); cf . | 1 | 1 |
DUTTON v. CITY OF MIDWEST CITYgreen2 sentences2024Dutton v. City of Midwest City , 2015 OK 51, n.71, 353 P.3d 532, 548 (writ may not issue to resolve a question publici juris when an alternative adequate remedy exists). 21 See discussion in "IV. 2024Dutton v. City of Midwest City , 2015 OK 51, n.71, 353 P.3d 532, 548 (writ may not issue to resolve a question publici juris when an alternative adequate remedy exists). 21 See discussion in "IV. | 1 | 1 |
Conterez v. O'DONNELLgreen2 sentences2003Conterez v. O'Donnell, 2002 OK 67, ¶ 6, n. 5 , 58 P.3d 759, 760-761 . 2003Conterez v. O'Donnell, 2002 OK 67, ¶ 6, n. 5 , 58 P.3d 759, 760-761 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Berry
green
1 sentence2010On appeal, and pursuant to a sua sponte inquiry into its jurisdiction, the Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded that this was an appealable order because "[it] is the functional equivalent of a disposition that denies the insurer's liability for an award." Id. ¶ 11 Here, the trial court's order dismissed Travelers because it found, in essence, that Travelers did not, at the critical time in question, [4] provide insurance coverage. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Chickasaw Telephone Co. v. Drabek
green
2 sentences2003Appellate Jurisdiction ¶ 3 This Court has an obligation to make a sua sponte inquiry into its appellate jurisdiction. *855 Baptist Medical Center of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Aguirre, 1996 OK 133, n. 14 , 930 P.2d 213, 218 ; Chickasaw Telephone Co. v. Drabek, 1996 OK 76, n. 16 , 921 P.2d 333, 337 . 2003Appellate Jurisdiction ¶ 3 This Court has an obligation to make a sua sponte inquiry into its appellate jurisdiction. *855 Baptist Medical Center of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Aguirre, 1996 OK 133, n. 14 , 930 P.2d 213, 218 ; Chickasaw Telephone Co. v. Drabek, 1996 OK 76, n. 16 , 921 P.2d 333, 337 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Baptist Medical Center of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Aguirre
green
2 sentences2003Appellate Jurisdiction ¶ 3 This Court has an obligation to make a sua sponte inquiry into its appellate jurisdiction. *855 Baptist Medical Center of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Aguirre, 1996 OK 133, n. 14 , 930 P.2d 213, 218 ; Chickasaw Telephone Co. v. Drabek, 1996 OK 76, n. 16 , 921 P.2d 333, 337 . 2003Appellate Jurisdiction ¶ 3 This Court has an obligation to make a sua sponte inquiry into its appellate jurisdiction. *855 Baptist Medical Center of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Aguirre, 1996 OK 133, n. 14 , 930 P.2d 213, 218 ; Chickasaw Telephone Co. v. Drabek, 1996 OK 76, n. 16 , 921 P.2d 333, 337 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Whitehead v. Tulsa Public Schools, 1998 OK 71, ¶0 , 968 P.2d 1211 ; Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Associates, Inc., 1995 OK 94 , ¶ 5 n. 5, 904 P.2d 73 , 75 n. 5; Woody v. State, ex rel. 2002Whitehead v. Tulsa Public Schools, 1998 OK 71, ¶0 , 968 P.2d 1211 ; Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Associates, Inc., 1995 OK 94 , ¶ 5 n. 5, 904 P.2d 73 , 75 n. 5; Woody v. State, ex rel. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Whitehead v. Tulsa Public Schools
green
2 sentences2002Whitehead v. Tulsa Public Schools, 1998 OK 71, ¶0 , 968 P.2d 1211 ; Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Associates, Inc., 1995 OK 94 , ¶ 5 n. 5, 904 P.2d 73 , 75 n. 5; Woody v. State, ex rel. 2002Whitehead v. Tulsa Public Schools, 1998 OK 71, ¶0 , 968 P.2d 1211 ; Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Associates, Inc., 1995 OK 94 , ¶ 5 n. 5, 904 P.2d 73 , 75 n. 5; Woody v. State, ex rel. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.