Case law

Board of Ed. of City of Sapulpa v. American Nat.

105 Okla. 120 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 30, 1924

Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Slinker, 35 Okla. 128 , 128 Pac. 696 ; Pauls Valley Compress & Storage Co. v. … Bison v. Walker. SO Okla. 237, 195 Pac. 899 ; Morris v. Purcell B. & T. Co., 85 Okla. 45 ; 204 Pile. 436.

Board of Trustees of the Firemen's Relief & Pension Fund v. Brooks

179 Okla. 600 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 13, 1937

Parker v. Lynch, 7 Okla. 631 , 56 P. 1082 ; Bockfinger v. Foster, 10 Okla. 488 , 62 P. 709 ; Fehr v. Black Pet. Corp., 103 Okla. 241 , 229 P. 1049 . … In the case of Wilson v.

City of Ardmore ex rel. Firemen's Relief & Pension Board v. Ozment

467 P.2d 502 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 24, 1970

In re Ross, 201 Okl. 476 , 207 P.2d 254 , and Roberts v. Board of Trustees of Firemen’s Relief & Pension Fund, Okl., 292 P.2d 408 . … Malone v. Mueller, 328 Ill.App. 593 , 66 N.E.2d 516 . The cited case is distinguishable from the present case both in facts and in law.

Kiowa County Excise Board v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.

301 P.2d 677 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 31, 1956

Board of Com’rs of Marshall County v. Shaw, 199 Okl. 66 , 182 P.2d 507, 513 . … « ⅝ ⅝ » In Excise Board of Oklahoma County v.

Sinclair Prairie Pipe Line Co. v. Excise Board of Tulsa County

173 Okla. 375 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 18, 1935

Faught v. City of Sapulpa, supra. It is contended by the protestee that the holding in the case of Board of County Commissioners of Rogers County v. … Wood et al. v. Kimbrell et al., 152 Okla. 239 , 5 P. (2d) 366 ; Board of Com’rs of Carter County v. First Nat. Bank of Berwyn et al., 159 Okla. 283 , 15 P. (2d) 6 .

State Ex Rel. State Board of Barber Examiners v. Gill

189 Okla. 458 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 1, 1941

See the case of Bankers Union Life Insurance Co. v. … See Conner, County Treasurer, v. Battles, 184 Okla. 351 , 87 P. 2d 121 . The judgment, insofar as it pertains to the foregoing order, is reversed. CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

Natl. Surety Co. v. Board of Educ. of City of Hugo

36 Okla. 569 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 15, 1912

School Board of Rural School Dist. No. 71 v. Henson

144 Okla. 202 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 9, 1930

In the case of Shore v. … In the case of Cheek v. Eye and Mitzler v.

McCurtain County Excise Board v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

340 P.2d 213 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 2, 1959

Also applicable is the holding in paragraph 4 of the syllabus in Zachary v. … City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okl. 22 , 223 P. 640 , 35 A.L.R. 872 .”

Stearns, Mayor v. Sims

24 Okla. 623 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 14, 1909

Brown was declared elected by the board of canvassers, whereupon De Long contested his election, which contest was pending on January 1, 1900. … Rep. 280 ; Memphis v. Woodward, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 499; Tanner v. Edwards, 31 Utah, 80 , 86 Pac. 765 , 120 Am. St. Rep. 919 ; Dorsey v. Smyth, 28 Cal. 21 ; Rasmussen v. Board of Co.

CHILDERS v. ARROWOOD

2023 OK 74 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 20, 2023

Fanning v. Brown , , ¶ 8, , 845. Likewise, legal questions involving statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review. Cole v. Josey , , ¶ 3, , 1009. … Second, the Arrowoods cite Brown v. McAnally , 644 P.2d 1153 (Wash. 1982).

Excise Board of Pottawatomie County v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co.

167 Okla. 251 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 30, 1934

Treas., 133 Okla. 13 , 270 P. 843; Grubb v. Smiley, Co. Treas., 142 Okla. 19 , 285 P. 38 ; C. D. Coggeshall & Co. v. Smiley, Co. Treas., 142 Okla. 8 , 285 P. 48 ; Monsell v. … Excise Board of Tulsa County, 142 Okla. 130 , 285 P. 836 ; Berryman v. Bonaparte, Co. Treas., 155 Okla. 165 , 11 P. (2d) 164 , that amount was properly used.

Deep Fork Construction Co. v. Board of Tax Roll Corrections

391 P.2d 810 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 17, 1964

The record does show that the plaintiff failed to appear before the equalization board although it was in session at least twenty days after notice of the assessment of the omitted property. In the case of Parkinson v. … J., HALLEY, V. C. J., and DAVISON, WILLIAMS, JACKSON and BERRY, JJ., concur. IRWIN, J., concurs in result.

Central Nat. Bank of Okmulgee v. Board of County Com'rs

173 Okla. 606 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 25, 1935

. - The defendant answered by general denial, and further alleged that the purported warrant was not based upon a valid, legal, and subsisting claim, and that the board of county commissioners had no authority or jurisdiction

Thompson v. Tucker

15 Okla. 486 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 5, 1905

(Golden & Co. v. City of Guthrie 3 Okla. 128 ; Wallack v. Society, 67 N. Y. 23 .) … (Poyer v. Village of Des Plaines. 20 Ill. App. 30 ; Levy v. city of Shreveport, 27 La. 620 ; City of Denver v. Bude,[Col.] 54 Pac. Rep. 624 ; Dill, Mun.

State Board of Medical Examiners v. State Ex Rel. Cherry

45 Okla. 575 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 1915

Prom the briefs before us, we gather that this is an action by mandamus to compel the plaintiffs in error, as the State Board of Medical Examiners, to register the defendant in error, Dr. G. P.

Board of Com'rs of Carter Cty. v. Sch. Dist. No. 71

135 Okla. 248 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 11, 1928

No. 7, Creek County, v. Board of Commissioners, Creek County, No. 18373, decided February 7, 1928, 135 Okla. 1 , 275 Pac. 292 (rehearing denied Dec. 4, 1928), is decisive of the issue herein.

Texas-Empire Pipe Line Co. v. Tulsa County, Excise Board

187 Okla. 591 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 1939

Co. v. Cowden, Co. Treas., 184 Okla. 260 , 86 P. 2d 776 ; Muskogee County Excise Board v. … BAYLESS, V. C. J., absent.

Sinclair Prairie Oil Marketing Co. v. State Board of Equalization

173 Okla. 74 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1935

said board. … X, OSBOBN, V. C. X, and BUSBY, WELCH, and GIBSON, JX, concur. RILEY, BAYLESS, and PHELPS, XL, absent.

Allstate Insurance Co. v. State Board for Property & Casualty Rates

408 P.2d 329 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 9, 1965

To do so, would countenance promulgation of orders not meeting the requirements set forth in the opinions this court promulgated in the two appeals styled Oklahoma Inspection Bureau et al. v. … with our opinions in the aforecited cases, and in such a way that “ * * * the reviewing court can decide whether the decision reached * * * follows * * * from the facts stated as its basis, * * See Saginaw Broadcasting Co. v.