Case law

Bd. of Com'rs of Oklahoma Cty. v. Beaty, Court Clerk

53 Okla. 393 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 11, 1916

Beaty, whereupon the board of county commissioners, not béing satisfied with the judgment of the lower court, instituted this proceeding in error. … Nowhere do we find, as in Ratliff v.

Pitts, Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Muskogee

138 Okla. 284 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 20, 1928

Every municipality must submit its budget to) the excise board of their respective counties. City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla. 22 , 223 Pac. 640 ; Oklahoma News Co. v. Ryan, 101 Okla. 151 , 224 Pac. 969 ; Ryan v. … Roach Drug Co., 113 Okla. 130 , 239 Pac. 913 ; Ryan v. Cook Building & Improvement Co., 113 Okla. 78 , 239 Pac. 919 ; Jones v. Kennedy 118 Okla. 224 , 247 Pac. 53 . Judgment is affirmed. BRANSON, C. J„ MASON, V. O.

Grubb v. Smiley

142 Okla. 19 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 10, 1929

schools, as held in Board of Education v. … Board of County Commissioners v. School Dist. No. 19, supra. Under section 9822, C. O.

Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System ex rel. Nesbitt v. Nelson

421 P.2d 221 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 27, 1966

In the Board of Co. Com’rs v. Oklahoma Pub. Emp. Retire. … As we stated in Board of Co. Com’rs v. Oklahoma Pub. Emp. Retire.

In Re Rolater

67 Okla. 215 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 22, 1918

In, the case of the Board of County Commissioners v. Field, 63 Okla. 80 , 162 Pac. 733 . this contention was made, and Mr. … Laws 1910; Balduff v. Griswold, 9 Okla. 438 , 60 Pac. 223 ; Gillett v. Romig, 17 Okla. 324 , 87 Pac. 325 ; Harding v. Gillett, 25 Okla. 199 , 107 Pac. 665 . In the case of the Board of Commissioners v.

Sanders v. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission

430 P.2d 789 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 18, 1967

In State v. … Tharp v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 57 Wyo. 486 , 121 P.2d 172 ; State Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Brown, 255 Or. 306 , 358 P.2d 502 ; Byrd v.

ANAGNOST v. TOMECEK

2017 OK 7 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 24, 2017

Prince, Trial Judge ¶0 After the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision (Board) began investigating the plaintiff/appellant, Dr. … Anagnost discovered additional information from the Board's file, he filed an amended petition asserting additional claims against the Board and certain Board members.

The Town of Norman v. Teel

12 Okla. 69 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 18, 1902

In the case of City of Aurora v. … In the case of Erie v.

Sheffield v. Fountain

101 Okla. 168 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 18, 1924

The statutes of Oklahoma do not give the school boards of union graded districts authority to discontinue schools, and such school board can exercise no other powers than those expressly granted by statute or necessarily … Stearns v. Sims, 24 Okla. 623 , 104 Pac. 44 ; McKee v. Adair County Election Board, 36 Okla. 258 , 128 Pac. 294 ; Strother v. Bolen, 72 Oklahoma, 181 Pac. 299 .

Martin v. Clay

8 Okla. 46 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 11, 1899

In Weber v. … v.

Smith Engineering Works v. Custer

194 Okla. 318 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 9, 1944

See Baldwin v. Fennimore, 149 Kan. 825 , 89 P. 2d 883 ; Hollinger v. Board of Com’rs, 115 Kan. 92 , 222 P. 136 ; Taylor v. Betts, 59 Ariz. 172 , 124 P. 2d 764 ; Haws v. … Co. v. Excise Board of Stephens Co., 168 Okla. 519 , 34 P. 2d 274 ; Dabney v. Hooker, 121 Okla. 193 , 249 P. 381 ; State v. Bonner, 86 Okla. 280 , 208 P. 825 .

Anderson v. Ritterbusch

22 Okla. 761 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 21, 1908

W. 473, 944 ; Ramsey Co. v. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 537 , 24 N. W. 313 ; People v. Board, 92 N. Y. 430 ; City of Wheeling v. Hawley, 18 W. Va. 472 ; Harwood v. N. Brookfield, 130 Mass. 561 ; Hubbard v. … Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 , 18 L. Ed. 356 ; County of Redwood v. Winona & St. P. Land Co., 40 Minn. 512 , 41 N. W. 465 , 42 N W. 473; County of Brown v. Winona & St. P.

Riley, County Clerk v. Carico

27 Okla. 33 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 12, 1910

In the case of Jones et al. v. … Oklahoma City v. Shields, 22 Okla. 265, 100 Pac. 559 ; Norris et al v. Cross, 25 Okla. 287 , 105 Pac. 1000 ; In re Menefee, 22 Okla. 365 , 97 Pac. 1014 .

Oklahoma Natural Gas Corp. v. Hall

166 Okla. 99 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 31, 1933

Brown, 155 Okla. 200 , 8 P. (2d) 749 ; Havens v. Industrial Commission, 156 Okla. 160 , 9 P. (2d) 933 ; Southern Surety Co. v. Galloway, 89 Okla. 45 , 213 P. 850 . The respondent O. L. … Co. v. Brown, supra, Brown was endeavoring to collect a bill for his employer and in the case at bar the employee was presenting a bill to a consumer for an employer.

Moore v. Calvert

8 Okla. 358 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 25, 1899

Mortg. secs. 722-724; Burnham v. Doolittle, 14 Neb, 214, 15 N. W. 606 ; Reed v. Fletcher. 24 Neb. 435 , 39 N. W. 437 ; Bank v. Clement, [Neb.,] 26 N. W. 583 ; Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 18 Neb. 334 , 25 N. … The case of Armstrong v. McAlpin, 18 Ohio St. 184 , is mot materially different in principle. Armstrong, the *369 sheriff, levied several writs of attachment on the chattels of Brown.

Wood v. Phillips

95 Okla. 255 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 18, 1923

The next witness introduced by the plaintiff was one John Ward, who testified that he was a member of the board of county commissioners of Coal county, and was chairman of the board, that he was. acquainted with the claims … but they had such interest in the effort of the plaintiff to secure a judgment against said county, based upon illegal claims, as entitled them to be made parties to this suit, under authority of the case of Threadgill v.

Lee v. United States

7 Okla. 558 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1898

(Nesbit v. Hines, 17 Kan. 316 ; Fowler v. Young, 19 Kan. 150 ; Hover v. Tenney, 27 Kan. 133 ; Wilson v. Kestler, 34 Kan. 61 , 7 Pac. 793 ; Joiner v. Van Alstyne, 20 Neb. 578 ; 30 N. W. 944 ; Light v. … W. 539 ; Manning v. Cunningham, 21 Neb. 288 , 31 N. W. 933 ; Gruen v. Bamberger, 25 Mo. App. 89 ; Hatcher v. Moore, 51 Mo. 115 .)

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Employment SEC. Com. v. Tulsa Flower Exchange

192 Okla. 293 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 16, 1943

Personal influence was the only instrument at his command in dealing with the board of directors concerning control of the corporation. It was said, however, in Gaines v. Gaines Bros. … The rule stated in Benner-Coryell Lumber Co. v. Indiana Unemployment Compensation Board, 218 Ind. 20 , 29 N. E. 2d 776 , should be followed here.

Blake v. Young

128 Okla. 153 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 6, 1927

the action of the board, may appeal to the district court. … See, also, Black v. Geissler, 58 Okla. 335 , 159 Pac. 1124 ; Fast v. Rogers. 30 Okla. 289 , 119 Pac. 241 ; Huber v. Akers, 66 Okla. 11 , 166 Pac. 892 : Going v. Treas., Carter Co., 88 Okla. 222 , 214 Pac. 922 .

Stine v. Lewis, Sheriff

33 Okla. 609 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 15, 1912

See City of Kansas City et al. v. Union Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 59 Kan. 427 , 53 Pac. 468 , 52 L. R. A. 321; Dejarnett v. Haynes, 23 Miss. 600 ; Sullivan, etc., v. Berry's Adm’r, 83 Ky. 198 , 4 Am. St. … State v. Railway Co., 76 Kan. 467 , 92 Pac. 606 . To the same effect is Schaake v. Dolley, 85 Kan. 598 , 118 Pac. 80 [37 L. R. A. (N.