will indulge every presumption in Oklahoma

6 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1940–2012 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)

Case	Followed	Cited
Y & Y CAB CO. v. Fordgreen okla · 1953 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1956–1994 2 sentences 1994“A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge sustaining such motion, and such an order will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record shows clearly that the court erred on a pure and unmixed question of law, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.” Y & Y Cab Co. v. Ford, 207 Okla. 663 , 252 P.2d 430, 431 (1953). 1994“A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge sustaining such motion, and such an order will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record shows clearly that the court erred on a pure and unmixed question of law, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.” Y & Y Cab Co. v. Ford, 207 Okla. 663 , 252 P.2d 430, 431 (1953).	1	2
Elmore v. McQuestiongreen okla · 1967 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994See also Elmore, supra; This Court has further held that where new trial is granted by the same judge who tried the case, a much stronger showing of error or abuse of discretion is required in order for this Court to reverse than if a party was appealing a refusal to grant a new trial.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Austin v. Cockings green okla · 1994 2 sentences 2012Austin, 1994 OK 29, ¶ 9 , 871 P.2d 33, 34 . 111 And, when the new trial is granted by the same judge who tried the case, a much stronger showing of error or abuse of discretion is required than if the party was appealing a refusal to grant a new trial. 2012Austin, 1994 OK 29, ¶ 9 , 871 P.2d 33, 34 . 111 And, when the new trial is granted by the same judge who tried the case, a much stronger showing of error or abuse of discretion is required than if the party was appealing a refusal to grant a new trial.	1	2012–2012
Pfrimmer v. Johnson neutral okla · 1944 2 sentences 1995Alexander contends that: 1) the trial was fair; 2) the mention of workers’ compensation was not prejudicial; and 3) the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the new trial. 9 A trial court is vested with wide discretion on whether to grant a new trial. 10 When a trial court’s decision to grant a new trial is appealed, this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the trial judge’s ruling. 11 An order granting a new trial will not be reversed on appeal unless the record clearly shows that the trial court either erred on a pure and unmixed 145 question of 1995Alexander contends that: 1) the trial was fair; 2) the mention of workers’ compensation was not prejudicial; and 3) the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the new trial. 9 A trial court is vested with wide discretion on whether to grant a new trial. 10 When a trial court’s decision to grant a new trial is appealed, this Court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the trial judge’s ruling. 11 An order granting a new trial will not be reversed on appeal unless the record clearly shows that the trial court either erred on a pure and unmixed 145 question of	1	1995–1995
Morningside Hospital & Training School for Nurses v. Pennington neutral okla · 1941 2 sentences 1951Thompson, Trustee, v. Norwood, 189 Okla. 360 , 117 P. 2d 791 ; Trower v. Roberts, 17 Okla. 641 , 89 P. 1113 ; Morningside Hospital & Training School For Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170 , 114 P. 2d 943 ; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis, 190 Okla. 523 , 125 P. 2d 969 ; Swift & Co. v. Kirkley, 191 Okla. 610 , 131 P. 2d 998 ; Thompson et al., Trustees, v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg. 1951Thompson, Trustee, v. Norwood, 189 Okla. 360 , 117 P. 2d 791 ; Trower v. Roberts, 17 Okla. 641 , 89 P. 1113 ; Morningside Hospital & Training School For Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170 , 114 P. 2d 943 ; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis, 190 Okla. 523 , 125 P. 2d 969 ; Swift & Co. v. Kirkley, 191 Okla. 610 , 131 P. 2d 998 ; Thompson et al., Trustees, v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg.	1	1951–1951
Trower v. Roberts green okla · 1907 2 sentences 1951Thompson, Trustee, v. Norwood, 189 Okla. 360 , 117 P. 2d 791 ; Trower v. Roberts, 17 Okla. 641 , 89 P. 1113 ; Morningside Hospital & Training School For Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170 , 114 P. 2d 943 ; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis, 190 Okla. 523 , 125 P. 2d 969 ; Swift & Co. v. Kirkley, 191 Okla. 610 , 131 P. 2d 998 ; Thompson et al., Trustees, v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg. 1951Thompson, Trustee, v. Norwood, 189 Okla. 360 , 117 P. 2d 791 ; Trower v. Roberts, 17 Okla. 641 , 89 P. 1113 ; Morningside Hospital & Training School For Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170 , 114 P. 2d 943 ; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis, 190 Okla. 523 , 125 P. 2d 969 ; Swift & Co. v. Kirkley, 191 Okla. 610 , 131 P. 2d 998 ; Thompson et al., Trustees, v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg.	1	1951–1951
Thompson v. Norwood neutral okla · 1941 2 sentences 1951Thompson, Trustee, v. Norwood, 189 Okla. 360 , 117 P. 2d 791 ; Trower v. Roberts, 17 Okla. 641 , 89 P. 1113 ; Morningside Hospital & Training School For Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170 , 114 P. 2d 943 ; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis, 190 Okla. 523 , 125 P. 2d 969 ; Swift & Co. v. Kirkley, 191 Okla. 610 , 131 P. 2d 998 ; Thompson et al., Trustees, v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg. 1951Thompson, Trustee, v. Norwood, 189 Okla. 360 , 117 P. 2d 791 ; Trower v. Roberts, 17 Okla. 641 , 89 P. 1113 ; Morningside Hospital & Training School For Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170 , 114 P. 2d 943 ; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis, 190 Okla. 523 , 125 P. 2d 969 ; Swift & Co. v. Kirkley, 191 Okla. 610 , 131 P. 2d 998 ; Thompson et al., Trustees, v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg.	1	1951–1951
Swift & Co. v. Kirkley green okla · 1942 2 sentences 1951Thompson, Trustee, v. Norwood, 189 Okla. 360 , 117 P. 2d 791 ; Trower v. Roberts, 17 Okla. 641 , 89 P. 1113 ; Morningside Hospital & Training School For Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170 , 114 P. 2d 943 ; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis, 190 Okla. 523 , 125 P. 2d 969 ; Swift & Co. v. Kirkley, 191 Okla. 610 , 131 P. 2d 998 ; Thompson et al., Trustees, v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg. 1951Thompson, Trustee, v. Norwood, 189 Okla. 360 , 117 P. 2d 791 ; Trower v. Roberts, 17 Okla. 641 , 89 P. 1113 ; Morningside Hospital & Training School For Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170 , 114 P. 2d 943 ; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis, 190 Okla. 523 , 125 P. 2d 969 ; Swift & Co. v. Kirkley, 191 Okla. 610 , 131 P. 2d 998 ; Thompson et al., Trustees, v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg.	1	1951–1951
Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis neutral okla · 1942 2 sentences 1951Thompson, Trustee, v. Norwood, 189 Okla. 360 , 117 P. 2d 791 ; Trower v. Roberts, 17 Okla. 641 , 89 P. 1113 ; Morningside Hospital & Training School For Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170 , 114 P. 2d 943 ; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis, 190 Okla. 523 , 125 P. 2d 969 ; Swift & Co. v. Kirkley, 191 Okla. 610 , 131 P. 2d 998 ; Thompson et al., Trustees, v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg. 1951Thompson, Trustee, v. Norwood, 189 Okla. 360 , 117 P. 2d 791 ; Trower v. Roberts, 17 Okla. 641 , 89 P. 1113 ; Morningside Hospital & Training School For Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170 , 114 P. 2d 943 ; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis, 190 Okla. 523 , 125 P. 2d 969 ; Swift & Co. v. Kirkley, 191 Okla. 610 , 131 P. 2d 998 ; Thompson et al., Trustees, v. Galion Iron Works & Mfg.	1	1951–1951
Hart v. Howell neutral okla · 1938 2 sentences 1940Hart v. Howell, 184 Okla. 146 , 85 P. 2d 401 ; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry. 1940Hart v. Howell, 184 Okla. 146 , 85 P. 2d 401 ; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry.	1	1940–1940

Where else courts name it

AL 80 (1924–2015) OK 6 (1940–2012) TX 4 (1985–2001)

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