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 1966–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Polk v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Boardgreen2 sentences2018However, the judiciary's constitutional prerogatives concerning fact-finding and adjudication should not be confused with the legislative prerogative to determine the rules of evidence , which this Court has directly recognized: "[a]s to legislative authority to declare rules of evidence, and that same are subject to modification or change is unquestioned, no person having a vested right in a rule of evidence." Polk v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. , 1966 OK 224 , ¶ 18, 420 P.2d 520 . 2018However, the judiciary's constitutional prerogatives concerning fact-finding and adjudication should not be confused with the legislative prerogative to determine the rules of evidence , which this Court has directly recognized: "[a]s to legislative authority to declare rules of evidence, and that same are subject to modification or change is unquestioned, no person having a vested right in a rule of evidence." Polk v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. , 1966 OK 224 , ¶ 18, 420 P.2d 520 . | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
LEE v. BUENO
green
2 sentences2018Lee , 2016 OK 97 at ¶ 41, 381 P.3d 736 (emphasis added). ¶ 29 When considered together, this Court's prior decisions support the following proposition: the Legislature is free to determine what evidence is and is not admissible in specific types of adjudicatory proceedings, but it may not afford elevated probative value to particular evidence nor give determinative effect to specific evidence or compel the conclusions to be drawn from it. 2018Lee , 2016 OK 97 at ¶ 41, 381 P.3d 736 (emphasis added). ¶ 29 When considered together, this Court's prior decisions support the following proposition: the Legislature is free to determine what evidence is and is not admissible in specific types of adjudicatory proceedings, but it may not afford elevated probative value to particular evidence nor give determinative effect to specific evidence or compel the conclusions to be drawn from it. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Loftis v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund
green
2 sentences2003Supp.1994 § 172, as applied to PPD actions filed after October 81, 1999, ... where the subsequent injury occurred on or before that date, is an unreasonable exercise of legislative authority affecting a vested right in violation of Art. 5, § 54." 2003 OK CIV APP 30, ¶ 17 , 67 P.3d at 924 . 2003Supp.1994 § 172, as applied to PPD actions filed after October 81, 1999, ... where the subsequent injury occurred on or before that date, is an unreasonable exercise of legislative authority affecting a vested right in violation of Art. 5, § 54." 2003 OK CIV APP 30, ¶ 17 , 67 P.3d at 924 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Lapointe
green
1 sentence1966Bekins v. City of Tulsa, Okl., 299 P.2d 792 ; Fry v. Wolfe, 106 Okl. 289 , 234 P. 191 ; Ann. 31 A.L.R. 1212 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Bekins v. City of Tulsa
green
1 sentence1966Bekins v. City of Tulsa, Okl., 299 P.2d 792 ; Fry v. Wolfe, 106 Okl. 289 , 234 P. 191 ; Ann. 31 A.L.R. 1212 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Fry v. Wolfe
neutral
2 sentences1966Bekins v. City of Tulsa, Okl., 299 P.2d 792 ; Fry v. Wolfe, 106 Okl. 289 , 234 P. 191 ; Ann. 31 A.L.R. 1212 . 1966Bekins v. City of Tulsa, Okl., 299 P.2d 792 ; Fry v. Wolfe, 106 Okl. 289 , 234 P. 191 ; Ann. 31 A.L.R. 1212 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.