Legal Opinion

In the Matter of BTW

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 16, 2008No. 105671PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWatt, J.

¶ 1 The appeal 1 of the district court orders of February 15 2 and 25, 3 2008, respectively, involves visitation and placement matters relating to the child and will be resolved by a single opinion in the instant appeal, 4 retained by the Court sua sponte We are asked to determine 5 whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering visitation with the goal of reunification and in directing a change in placement.

2 The record contains facts in support of both sides of the controversy on the visitation and custody issues. Nevertheless, a review of the record and the transcripts reveal…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Abel v. TisdaleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
  2. Finnell v. SeismicSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
  3. Spencer v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
  4. Tibbetts v. Sight 'N Sound Appliance Centers, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
  5. Mueggenborg v. WallingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. PiggSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
  2. IN THE MATTER OF M.K.T.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
  3. In Re BTWSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
  4. Howard v. Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011
  5. Ator v. UNKNOWN HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF ATORCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2006

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API