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 3 courts 1915–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gilbert v. Stategreen2 sentences2008That Court noted this requirement is "in accord with Oklahoma's rejection of common law definitions of contempt, as well as the well-accepted rule that statutes imposing penal sanctions should be strictly construed [and] also in keeping with the trend in recent years toward viewing summary contempt with disfavor and narrowly restricting its use." Id. at 1232. ¶12 The power of the trial judge to summarily impose punishment for direct contempt is limited by the provisions of 21 O.S.2001 § 565.1, as follows: [2] A. The trial judge has the power to cite for contempt anyone who, in his presence in 2008That Court noted this requirement is "in accord with Oklahoma's rejection of common law definitions of contempt, as well as the well-accepted rule that statutes imposing penal sanctions should be strictly construed [and] also in keeping with the trend in recent years toward viewing summary contempt with disfavor and narrowly restricting its use." Id. at 1282. 112 The power of the trial judge to summarily impose punishment for direct contempt is limited by the provisions of 21 0.8. 2001 § 565.1, as follows: 2 A. The trial judge has the power to cite for contempt anyone who, in his presence in o | 2 | 2 |
Paul v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See also Winningham v. State, 488 P.2d 609 (Okl.Cr. 1971) (a change in the rules governing joinder of criminal trials was procedural and therefore applied to all trials occurring after the effective date of the statute, even if the crime occurred before the enactment of *738 the statute); Paul v. State, 483 P.2d 1176, 1178 (Okl.Cr. 1971) (same). [5] Despite this well-accepted rule governing the application of changes in procedural rules to a defendant's trial, the dissent cites several cases to support its apparent disenchantment with this basic rule of law. 1993See also Winningham v. State, 488 P.2d 609 (Okl.Cr.1971) (a change in the rules governing join-der of criminal trials was procedural and therefore applied to all trials occurring after the effective date of the statute, even if the crime occurred before the enactment of the statute); Paul v. State, 483 P.2d 1176, 1178 (Okl.Cr.1971) (same). 5 Despite this well-accepted rule governing the application of changes in procedural rules to a defendant’s trial, the dissent cites several cases to support its apparent disenchantment with this basic rule of law. | 1 | 1 |
Winningham v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See also Winningham v. State, 488 P.2d 609 (Okl.Cr. 1971) (a change in the rules governing joinder of criminal trials was procedural and therefore applied to all trials occurring after the effective date of the statute, even if the crime occurred before the enactment of *738 the statute); Paul v. State, 483 P.2d 1176, 1178 (Okl.Cr. 1971) (same). [5] Despite this well-accepted rule governing the application of changes in procedural rules to a defendant's trial, the dissent cites several cases to support its apparent disenchantment with this basic rule of law. 1993See also Winningham v. State, 488 P.2d 609 (Okl.Cr.1971) (a change in the rules governing join-der of criminal trials was procedural and therefore applied to all trials occurring after the effective date of the statute, even if the crime occurred before the enactment of the statute); Paul v. State, 483 P.2d 1176, 1178 (Okl.Cr.1971) (same). 5 Despite this well-accepted rule governing the application of changes in procedural rules to a defendant’s trial, the dissent cites several cases to support its apparent disenchantment with this basic rule of law. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Humphreygreen2 sentences1982See State v. Humphrey, 620 P.2d 408 (Okl.Cr. 1980); State ex rel. 1982See State v. Humphrey, 620 P.2d 408 (Okl.Cr.1980); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maule v. Independent School District No. 9
green
1 sentence2009If a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one which will uphold the Act and its constitutionality, while the other will strike it down, it is our duty to apply the former course." Id. at ¶ 13, 714 P.2d at 204 . ' 19 We find that when read together with all of its provisions, the statute requires DPS to give a licensee both notice of the revocation and notice of the licensee's right to request an administrative hearing which affords a licensee the due process protections contemplated by the legislature. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Chadwick v. Russell
neutral
1 sentence1915Without these exceptions, the power would be as unlimited as that of the people from whom it is derived; for the express reservation of a particular thing out of a general grant proves that the thing reserved would be within the general grant, had not the reservation been made.” In the case of Capital City Water Co. v. Board of Revenue of Montgomery County, 117 Ala. 290 , 23 South. 970 , the court said: “It is a well-accepted principle of law that the state Constitutions are not in their nature enabling acts, to ’which class the Constitution of the United States belongs, but are limitations on | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Walcott v. People
green
1 sentence1915Without these exceptions, the power would be as unlimited as that of the people from whom it is derived; for the express reservation of a particular thing out of a general grant proves that the thing reserved would be within the general grant, had not the reservation been made.” In the case of Capital City Water Co. v. Board of Revenue of Montgomery County, 117 Ala. 290 , 23 South. 970 , the court said: “It is a well-accepted principle of law that the state Constitutions are not in their nature enabling acts, to ’which class the Constitution of the United States belongs, but are limitations on | 1 | 1915–1915 |
State ex rel. Ellis v. Thorne
green
2 sentences1915Ellis et al. v. Thorne, 112 Wis. 81 , 87 N. W. 797 , 55 L. 1915Ellis et al. v. Thorne, 112 Wis. 81 , 87 N. W. 797 , 55 L. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.