trust motion (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

trust motion in Oklahoma

6 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2015 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Littlegreen
okla · 2004 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013Dept. of Transp. v. Little, 2004 OK 74, ¶ 11 , 100 P.3d 707, 712 . 124 In the present case, the trial court granted Trust's motion to exclude evidence of voluntary transactions between the parties on the same and similarly situated properties.

2013Dept. of Transp. v. Little, 2004 OK 74, ¶ 11 , 100 P.3d 707, 712 . 124 In the present case, the trial court granted Trust's motion to exclude evidence of voluntary transactions between the parties on the same and similarly situated properties.

12
In Re Almeidagreen
mab · 2009 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015However, in In re Almeida, 417 B.R. 140, 149 (Bankr.D.Mass.2009), a federal bankruptey court generally assessed whether a stranger to a trust may challenge whether the trust's regulations were followed in the acquisition or transfer of an asset,.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Estate of Meredith green
mich · 1936
2 sentences

1969After a review of the authorities we deem the better rule to be that pronounced by the Michigan court in In re Meredith, 275 Mich. 278 , 266 N.W. 351 , 104 A.L.R. 348 .

1969After a review of the authorities we deem the better rule to be that pronounced by the Michigan court in In re Meredith, 275 Mich. 278 , 266 N.W. 351 , 104 A.L.R. 348 .

11969–1969
McKnight v. Bank of New York & Trust Co. green
ny · 1930
1 sentence

1938The Court of Appeals, after stating that in such an action all beneficiaries are necessary parties, stated in 254 N. Y., at page 421 , 173 N. E. 569 : ‘Not always is it easy to determine in an action of this kind who should be made parties, or who are beneficially interested, but the prevailing equitable rule appears to be that all those who are living and are beneficially interested should be made the parties in an action to set aside or revoke an instrument or deed of trust.’ ” Under the rule adopted in the foregoing cases, only the consent of persons in being is required for revocation of a

11938–1938
Neff v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1928
1 sentence

1936“This court in the ease In re Trusteeship of Vance, 102 Okia. 129, 227 P. 881 , held that the title to the income from a trust estate is in the beneficiary, and also held in the case of Flesner v. Cooper, 39 Okla. 133 , 134 P. 379 , that the beneficiary’s interest in a resulting trust was an equitable estate which might he conveyed.

11936–1936
In Re Trusteeship of Vance neutral
okla · 1924
1 sentence

1936“This court in the ease In re Trusteeship of Vance, 102 Okia. 129, 227 P. 881 , held that the title to the income from a trust estate is in the beneficiary, and also held in the case of Flesner v. Cooper, 39 Okla. 133 , 134 P. 379 , that the beneficiary’s interest in a resulting trust was an equitable estate which might he conveyed.

11936–1936
Flesner v. Cooper neutral
okla · 1913
1 sentence

1936“This court in the ease In re Trusteeship of Vance, 102 Okia. 129, 227 P. 881 , held that the title to the income from a trust estate is in the beneficiary, and also held in the case of Flesner v. Cooper, 39 Okla. 133 , 134 P. 379 , that the beneficiary’s interest in a resulting trust was an equitable estate which might he conveyed.

11936–1936

Where else courts name it

NY 49 (1873–2025) CA 36 (1891–2025) IL 25 (1876–2025) WI 24 (1936–2023) TX 19 (1996–2023) AL 17 (1919–2026) FL 15 (1890–2025) UT 14 (2006–2026) AZ 13 (2006–2024) PA 12 (1920–2024) MA 11 (1932–2023) MO 10 (1907–2024) NC 9 (1994–2024) OH 9 (1897–2025) IN 8 (1899–2018) IA 8 (1912–2021) MN 8 (1891–2007) GA 6 (1917–2022) MI 6 (1930–2017) OK 6 (1936–2015) CT 5 (1946–2020) OR 5 (1914–2020) VA 5 (1932–2026) KS 4 (1898–1965) NJ 4 (1950–2006) TN 4 (1938–2020) ME 4 (2012–2017) DE 4 (1914–2020) SD 4 (1895–2008) LA 3 (1967–2015) KY 3 (1914–1971) WA 3 (1938–2023) HI 3 (1942–2023) RI 3 (2005–2008) NH 2 (2002–2010) VT 2 (1923–2010) AR 2 (2023–2024) ND 2 (1918–2019) MS 2 (1967–2012) WY 2 (2000–2018) MD 2 (1910–1973) DC 2 (2011–2021) MT 2 (1912–1993) AK 2 (1977–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check