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.
44 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hospital Authoritygreen2 sentences2024Auth., 1989 OK 73, ¶ 13, 775 P.2d 281, 287 ("[a] pleading must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim unless the allegations indicate beyond any doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief"). 2024Auth., 1989 OK 73 , ¶ 13, 775 P.2d 281, 287 ("[a] pleading must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim unless the allegations indicate beyond any doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief"). | 12 | 23 |
Tuffy's, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma Citygreen2 sentences2016"A pleading must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim unless the allegations indicate beyond any doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts which would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Id. ¶4 The dismissal in this case was made on the grounds that no duty existed pursuant to the facts pled. 2016"A pleading must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim unless the allegations indicate beyond any doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts which would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Id. ¶4 The dismissal in this case was made on the grounds that no duty existed pursuant to the facts pled. | 2 | 10 |
Gens v. Casady Schoolgreen2 sentences2015Appellate courts review an order dismissing a petition de novo "considering the legal sufficiency of the petition and taking all allegations in the plaintiff's petition as true." Gens v. Casady Sch. , 2008 OK 5, ¶ 8, 177 P.3d 565, 569. 2015Appellate courts review an order dismissing a petition de novo "considering the legal sufficiency of the petition and taking all allegations in the plaintiff's petition as true." Gens v. Casady Sch. , 2008 OK 5, ¶ 8, 177 P.3d 565, 569. | 1 | 2 |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Tidwellgreen2 sentences2020See also FDIC v. Tidwell , 1991 OK 119 , 820 P.2d 1338, 1341 (adjudication of a cause of action includes adjudication of a legally cognizable defense to the cause of action). 37 McGee v. Alexander , 2001 OK 78 , ¶ 23, 37 P.3d 800, 806 (the absence of any one element used to define a cause of action is enough to defeat this action); Akin v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. , 1998 OK 102 , ¶ 9, 977 P.2d 1040, 1044 (a defendant must show either the absence of at least one essential element to plaintiff's cause of action, or the presence of all elements necessary to an affirmative defense to the ca 2020See also FDIC v. Tidwell , 1991 OK 119 , 820 P.2d 1338, 1341 (adjudication of a cause of action includes adjudication of a legally cognizable defense to the cause of action). 37 McGee v. Alexander , 2001 OK 78 , ¶ 23, 37 P.3d 800, 806 (the absence of any one element used to define a cause of action is enough to defeat this action); Akin v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. , 1998 OK 102 , ¶ 9, 977 P.2d 1040, 1044 (a defendant must show either the absence of at least one essential element to plaintiff's cause of action, or the presence of all elements necessary to an affirmative defense to the ca | 1 | 1 |
Akin v. Missouri Pacific Railroadgreen2 sentences2020See also FDIC v. Tidwell , 1991 OK 119 , 820 P.2d 1338, 1341 (adjudication of a cause of action includes adjudication of a legally cognizable defense to the cause of action). 37 McGee v. Alexander , 2001 OK 78 , ¶ 23, 37 P.3d 800, 806 (the absence of any one element used to define a cause of action is enough to defeat this action); Akin v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. , 1998 OK 102 , ¶ 9, 977 P.2d 1040, 1044 (a defendant must show either the absence of at least one essential element to plaintiff's cause of action, or the presence of all elements necessary to an affirmative defense to the ca 2020See also FDIC v. Tidwell , 1991 OK 119 , 820 P.2d 1338, 1341 (adjudication of a cause of action includes adjudication of a legally cognizable defense to the cause of action). 37 McGee v. Alexander , 2001 OK 78 , ¶ 23, 37 P.3d 800, 806 (the absence of any one element used to define a cause of action is enough to defeat this action); Akin v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. , 1998 OK 102 , ¶ 9, 977 P.2d 1040, 1044 (a defendant must show either the absence of at least one essential element to plaintiff's cause of action, or the presence of all elements necessary to an affirmative defense to the ca | 1 | 1 |
McGee v. Alexandergreen2 sentences2020See also FDIC v. Tidwell , 1991 OK 119 , 820 P.2d 1338, 1341 (adjudication of a cause of action includes adjudication of a legally cognizable defense to the cause of action). 37 McGee v. Alexander , 2001 OK 78 , ¶ 23, 37 P.3d 800, 806 (the absence of any one element used to define a cause of action is enough to defeat this action); Akin v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. , 1998 OK 102 , ¶ 9, 977 P.2d 1040, 1044 (a defendant must show either the absence of at least one essential element to plaintiff's cause of action, or the presence of all elements necessary to an affirmative defense to the ca 2020See also FDIC v. Tidwell , 1991 OK 119 , 820 P.2d 1338, 1341 (adjudication of a cause of action includes adjudication of a legally cognizable defense to the cause of action). 37 McGee v. Alexander , 2001 OK 78 , ¶ 23, 37 P.3d 800, 806 (the absence of any one element used to define a cause of action is enough to defeat this action); Akin v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. , 1998 OK 102 , ¶ 9, 977 P.2d 1040, 1044 (a defendant must show either the absence of at least one essential element to plaintiff's cause of action, or the presence of all elements necessary to an affirmative defense to the ca | 1 | 1 |
Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc.green2 sentences2009Title 12 0.8.2001 $ 2008(A)(1) requires that a plaintiff's pleading setting forth a claim contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" (Emphasis added.) A motion to dismiss "tests a pleading's sufficiency to support a legally cognizable claim...." Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc., 2008 OK 1 , 176 P.3d 1204, 1209, n. 17 . 2009Title 12 0.8.2001 $ 2008(A)(1) requires that a plaintiff's pleading setting forth a claim contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" (Emphasis added.) A motion to dismiss "tests a pleading's sufficiency to support a legally cognizable claim...." Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc., 2008 OK 1 , 176 P.3d 1204, 1209, n. 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Eddy v. Browngreen1 sentence1991The tort she has elected to proceed under is known in Oklahoma as “intentional infliction of emotional distress”, sometimes also known as the tort of “outrage.” Eddy v. Brown, 715 P.2d 74, 75 (Okla.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Beck v. Bacone Collegegreen2 sentences1989Beck v. Bacone College, Okl.App., 604 P.2d 876, 877 [1980]. 1989Beck v. Bacone College, Okl.App., 604 P.2d 876, 877 [1980]. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 282907green1 sentence1989See also, Schwartz v. Compagnie General Transatlantique, 405 F.2d 270, 273-274 [2d Cir.1968]; Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2713 at 594 [1983]. [15] A motion to dismiss for failure to state facts upon which relief may be granted tests the pleading's sufficiency to support a legally cognizable claim, while a motion for summary judgment tenders the case for adjudication upon application of law to uncontroverted facts which, on all material issues, support but a single inference in favor of the movant. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fanning v. Brown
green
2 sentences2016"A pleading must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim unless the allegations indicate beyond any doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief." Id. (quoting Frazier v. Bryan Mem. 2016“A pleading must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim unless the allegations indicate beyond any doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.” Id. (quoting Frazier v. Bryan Mem. | 7 | 2006–2016 |
GJA v. OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES
green
2 sentences2016I do not interpret this or any similar language in Bosh as recognizing a broad scope of actionable claims based upon violations of constitutional rights, and therefore I disagree with GJA v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, 2015 OK CIV APP 32 , 347 P.3d 310 . ¶ 21 In my opinion, the pleading under review fails to state a legally cognizable claim and it would be legally insufficient under any set of facts. 2016I do not interpret this or any similar language in Bosh as recognizing a broad scope of actionable claims based upon violations of constitutional rights, and therefore I disagree with GJA v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, 2015 OK CIV APP 32 , 347 P.3d 310 . ¶ 21 In my opinion, the pleading under review fails to state a legally cognizable claim and it would be legally insufficient under any set of facts. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Hulsey v. Mid-America Preferred Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2008Hulsey v. Mid-America Preferred Insurance Co., 1989 OK 107 , ¶ 8 n. 15, 777 P.2d 932 , 936 n. 15. 1994Co., Okl., 777 P.2d 932 , 936 n. 15 (1989) (a claim must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim unless it can be determined as a matter of law that the pleader cannot prove any set of facts that would warrant relief in his/her favor). 17 . | 2 | 1994–2008 |
Parret v. UNICCO Service Co.
red
2 sentences2012"A pleading must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim unless the allegations indicate beyond any doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief" Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hospital Authority, 1989 OK 73 , ¶ 13, 775 P.2d 281, 287 . ¶ 6 Upon review, this Court finds that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's dismissal, because Jordan alleged sufficient facts under the substantial certainty standard set forth in Parrett, 2005 OK 54, ¶¶ 23-26 , 127 P.3d at 578-79 . 2012"A pleading must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim unless the allegations indicate beyond any doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief" Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hospital Authority, 1989 OK 73 , ¶ 13, 775 P.2d 281, 287 . ¶ 6 Upon review, this Court finds that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's dismissal, because Jordan alleged sufficient facts under the substantial certainty standard set forth in Parrett, 2005 OK 54, ¶¶ 23-26 , 127 P.3d at 578-79 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Indiana National Bank v. State Department of Human Services
green
1 sentence2005Id. at ¶ 3, 880 P.2d at 375 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hayes v. Eateries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Hayes, 905 P.2d at 780 . ¶ 5 We also keep in mind when reviewing this matter, the primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and follow the Legislature’s intention. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lockhart v. Loosen
green
1 sentence2000T4 Furthermore, in Lockhart v. Loosen, 1997 OK 103, ¶5 , 948 P.2d 1074, 1078 , this Court opined that "[glenerally, motions to dismiss are viewed with disfavor. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
McLin v. Trimble
green
1 sentence1995In McLin v. Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla.1990), our Supreme Court held that in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, a court should first address whether the undisputed facts show a legally cognizable claim for relief. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Conley v. Gibson
red
2 sentences1994Plaintiff cites Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), to support his proposition that his petition “must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim for relief unless it can be determined that as a matter of law he cannot prove any set of facts that would warrant relief in his favor.” He contends that he had pleaded the elements of negligence — existence of a duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury to himself proximately flowing from that breach. 1994Plaintiff cites Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), to support his proposition that his petition “must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim for relief unless it can be determined that as a matter of law he cannot prove any set of facts that would warrant relief in his favor.” He contends that he had pleaded the elements of negligence — existence of a duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury to himself proximately flowing from that breach. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.