Case law

Territory of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Miller v. Hewitt

5 Okla. 167 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1897

Elsbree v. … To the same effect is Byington v.

George v. Adamson

184 Okla. 289 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 31, 1939

We said (citing Roberts v. … “In Roberts v.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 52 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY v. WALTERS

546 P.3d 875 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 2, 2024

Board of Education of Independent School District No. 1 of Grady County v. … Maynard Discussed 1952 OK 80, 242 P.2d 427, 206 Okla 261, THE FORTINBERRY CO. v. BLUNDELL Discussed 1955 OK 229, 287 P.2d 704, STATE v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Discussed 2003 OK 30, 66 P.3d 442, GLADSTONE v.

State Ex Rel. Love v. Smith

43 Okla. 231 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 16, 1914

In Kerr v. … Hart v. Harvey, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 55.

Shofner v. Mercer

164 Okla. 170 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 27, 1933

. 5 v. … In the case of School District No. 18 of Creek County v.

Petition of Wayland

510 P.2d 1385 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 16, 1971

In Schware v. … However, Goldsmith had not demanded a hearing before the board and the judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. In Salot v.

State Ex Rel. Caldwell v. Vaughn

33 Okla. 384 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1912

W. v. S. F., 52 Cal. 111 .) … parties. *389 In Montgomery v.

Clay v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County

68 O.B.A.J. 559 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 18, 1997

See Excise Board of Grady County v. … See Board of County Commissioners of Osage County v.

Lovett, Creek County Com'rs v. Lankford

47 Okla. 12 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 29, 1914

shall be chairman of said board. … Brashear v. Mason, 6 How. 92 [ 12 L. Ed. 357 ] ; United States ex rel. Goodrich v. Guthrie, 17 How. 285 [ 15 L. Ed. 102 ]; Commissioner of Patents v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. *23 522 [ 18 L. Ed. 385 ]; Georgia v.

Olmstead v. Reedy

387 P.2d 631 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 26, 1963

Reedy filed with the Board. This is especially true since plaintiffs pleaded damage to alfalfa and truck patch. In the case of City of Tulsa v. … See Swisher v. Clark, 202 Okl. 25 , 209 P.2d 880 , and Hart v. Starnes Lbr. Co., Okl., 290 P.2d 123 . The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. BLACKBIRD, C. J., HALLEY, V. C.

Wallace v. Bullen

6 Okla. 757 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1898

Cunningham, et al. v. Thomas, et al., 50 Pac. Rep. 615 , involving the same question, we are clearly of the opinion that the law was not correctly stated in the case of Gray v. … And under the provisions of our statutes relating to the assessment and valuation of property for revenue purposes, and defining the powers of the several officers and boards, we hold that the territorial board of equalization

Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McIntosh

92 Okla. 153 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 18, 1923

In the case of Board of Excise of Oklahoma County v. … (Lamb v. Palmer, 79 Okla. 86 , 191 Pac. 164 ; Wallace v. Excise Board of Bryan County, 91 Okla. 101 , 216 Pac. 654 .) For the reasons stated, we think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Andrews v. Independent School District No. 29

737 P.2d 929 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 19, 1987

Haworth Board of Education of Independent School District, I-6, McCurtain County v. Havens, 637 P.2d 902, 904 (Okl.Ct.App.1981). 3 . International Association of Firefighters v. … Thorpe, 632 P.2d 408 , 411 (Okl.1981) and Sanders v. Benton, 579 P.2d 815, 820 (Okl.1978). 4 . Sanders, 579 P.2d at 819 .

Owen v. City of Tulsa

27 Okla. 264 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 21, 1910

Beaumont v. Bramley, 1 Turner & Russell, 41-50; Marquis of Breadalbane v. *275 Marquis of Chandos, 2 Mylne & Craig, 711; Fowler v. Fowler, 4 De Gex & Jones, 255; Sells v. Sells, 1 Drewry & Snales, 42; Loyd v. … Booke v. Lord Kinsington, 2 Kay & Johnson, 753: Eaton v. Bennett. 34 Ravan. 196. A mistake on one side may be a ground for rescinding, but not for reforming a contract. Mortimer v.

Martin v. McGarr

27 Okla. 653 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 13, 1910

Lim. (7th Ed.) p. 933; Howell et al. v. Pate et al. (Ga.) 46 S. E. 667 ; McDowell v. Rutherford Ry. Const. Co. et al. (N. C.) 2 S. E. 351 ; Smith v. Board Co. Com’rs Skagit Co., 45 Fed. 725 ; State ex rel. Harris v. … Gen. v. McDaniel et al., 22 Ohio St. 354 ; Fort Dodge City School Dist. v. Dist. Township of Wahkansa, 17 Iowa, 85 ; People ex rel. Wallace v. Salomon, 46 Ill. 415 ; Newcum v. Kirtley, 52 Ky. 515 ; Marshall v.

School Dist. No. 76 v. Bath

120 Okla. 204 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 23, 1926

Between the date of plaintiff’s contract with the school board and the time fixed by the contract for beginning the school term, there was a change in the personnel of the school board, two members having-retired, and the … year for services then to be performed, is violative of the intent and purpose of section 26, article 10 of the state Constitution, as declared in Gentis v.

Lee v. Mehew

8 Okla. 136 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 11, 1899

(City of Olympia v. Stevens, [Wash.] 47 Pac. 11 ; Town of Lemont v. Singer & Tolcott Stone Co., 98 Ill. 94 .) … Under the rulings of this court in Bardrick v. Dillon, supra, and Weber v.

Jungels v. Town of Hennessey

202 Okla. 619 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 11, 1950

Our views upon this question are further supported by the decisions of this court in Lowden et al. v. Washita County Excise Board, 188 Okla. 698 , 113 P. 2d 370 ; and School District No. 37, Washita County, et al. v. … Clark v. Lockstone, 170 Okla. 316 , 39 P. 2d 971 . The evidence in the record shows no fraud on the part of the board of trustees.

Tenneco Oil Company v. Allen

515 P.2d 1391 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 30, 1973

See also Sunray D-X Oil Company v. Brown (1970), Okl., 477 P.2d 67 , wherein this court held that damages resulting from an oil and gas operation can be recovered in an action brought on a nuisance theory. … Compare, however, Sunray D-X Oil Company v. Brown, supra.

Murphy v. Darnell

268 P.2d 860 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1954

King v. … . * * *» The same general statement was made in the case of Stafford v. State Election Board, 203 Okl. 132 , 218 P.2d 617 . As herein above pointed out, the case of Martin v.