Case law

Portsmouth Trust & Guarantee Co. v. Harjo

179 Okla. 457 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 26, 1937

The defendants urge that the restrictions are a right that run with the land, and cite in support thereof Brown v. Minshall, 83 Okla. 98 , 202 P. 1037 . … We think there is no conflict between the .holding of this court in Brown v. Minshall, supra, and the above-cited cases.

Garman v. Myers

183 Okla. 141 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1938

Plaintiff contends the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and in utter disregard of undisputed evidence, and that no disqualifying evidence existed. Paragraph 2 of the syllabus in Boyle v. … the entire matter to an arbitrary declaration of the board.

Lusk v. Eminhiser, County Treasurer

53 Okla. 785 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 6, 1916

Mobile Transportation Co. v. City of Mobile, 128 Ala. 335 , 30 South. 645 , 64 L. R. A. 333, 86 Am. St. Rep. 143 ; Jefferson v. Toomer, Clerk, 28 Okla. 658 , 115 Pac. 793 . … Many of the authorities construing this and similar constitutional provisions in harmony with the foregoing views may be found collected in Jefferson v. Toomer, Clerk, supra.

City of Muskogee v. Grayson

62 O.B.A.J. 3005 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 8, 1991

Comm. of the City of Tulsa v. Gresham, 653 P.2d 920 (Okla.1982). In White, the City of Tulsa appealed from a district court ruling which affirmed and modified a decision of the Tulsa Civil Service Commission. … In holding that Grayson was to be accorded permanent status as a Lieutenant, the Merit Board relied upon an earlier unpublished opinion by the Court of Appeals titled Kucera and Acevedo v.

Sizemore v. Cleveland County Assessor

690 P.2d 1054 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 13, 1984

No. 9 v. Glass, 639 P.2d 1233, 1238 (Okla.1982). . County of Maricopa v. North Central Dev. … See People v.

Thomas v. Henry

260 P.3d 1251 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 2011

The plaintiff sued Brad Henry, Governor of the State of Oklahoma, and the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County. 1 The Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County was dismissed as a defendant upon stipulation of … Macy v. Board of County Commissioners, 1999 OK 58 , T 14, 986 P.2d 1130, 1138-1139 . In Grimes v. Oklahoma City, 2002 OK 47 , 1 10, 49 P.3d 719, 723 , we said: "We held in Anderson v.

School Dist. No. 62 v. Morgan

127 Okla. 193 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 13, 1927

In School District No. 16 v. … Also, in Ryan v.

Dunn v. T. J. Cannon Co.

51 Okla. 382 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 28, 1915

Rep. 642 ; Adams v. Nichols, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 275, 31 Am. Dec. 137 ; Harmony v. Bingham, 12 N. Y. 99 , 62 Am. Dec. 142 .” In Meek v. … Supp. 125 ; Stewart v. Thayer, 170 Mass. 560 , 49 N. E. 1020 ; Jennings v. Camp, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 94, 7 Am. Dec. 367 ; Edward Thompson Co. v. Washburn, 191 Mass. 6 , 77 N. E. 483 .

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.

Means v. Vernon

108 Okla. 123 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 3, 1925

Stat. 1921, that before any money can be paid out by blie district school boards, there must be a written contract ‘‘approved by such county superintendent existing between such district board and such teachers' to be paid … Champlin v. Carter, 78 Okla. 300 , 190 Pac. 679 ; Lovett v. Lankford, 47 Okla. 12 , 145 Pac. 767 .

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.

Leonard v. City of Wagoner

178 Okla. 553 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 8, 1936

Land, 101 Okla. 22 , 223 P. 640 ; Oklahoma News Co. v. Ryan, 101 Okla. 151 , 224 P. 969 ; Ryan v. Roach Drug Co., 113 Okla. 130 , 239 P. 912 ; Ryan v. Cook Building & Investment Co., 113 Okla. 78 , 239 P. 919 ; Jones v. … Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 118 Okla. 201 , 248 P. 336 ; Smith v. City of Tahlequah, 145 Okla. 103 , 291 P. 981 ; Zachary v. City of Wagoner, supra; and Public Service Company of Oklahoma v.

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.

Daniel v. Stucky

118 Okla. 150 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 6, 1926

Treas., v. First Nat. Bank of Perry et al., 89 Okla. 160 , 213 Pac. 876 , the second and third paragraphs of the syllabus read: “Under section 7367, Rev. … Bank v. Achenbach, 110 Okla. 246 , 237 Pac. 574 .

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.

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 .

Oklahoma Public Welfare Commission v. State Ex Rel. Thompson

187 Okla. 654 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 17, 1940

United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161 , 48 L. Ed. 917 ; Town of Kearney v. State Board of Taxes and Assessment, 103 N. J. L. 26, 135 A. 61 . … Ed. 408 (shipping board); DePauw University v. Brunk, D. C., 53 F. 2d 647, 652 ; Palermo Land & Water Co. v. Railroad Commission, D. C., 227 F. 708 ; Hammerstrom v. Toy Nat.

Trask v. Johnson

452 P.2d 575 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 25, 1969

As we understand it, the rule most favorable to the petitioners, set forth in cases such as Smith v. … The same basic principle, varied with the circumstances, quoted from Hemmer v. United States, 204 F. 898 , 123 C.C.A. 194 , is stated by this court in Crosbie v.

In re Evinger

629 P.2d 363 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 2, 1981

Greene v. Committee of Bar Examiners, supra. … The conclusion of the Special Board of Bar Examiners is affirmed and the petitioner is denied admission to the Oklahoma Bar. IRWIN, C. J., BARNES, V. C.

Yazel v. William K. Warren Medical Research Center, Inc.

364 P.3d 1290 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 24, 2014

KAUGER, J. 1 1 This cause No. 111,648 Ken Yazel, Tulsa County Assessor v, The William K. Warren Medical Research Center, Inc., et al (Ya-zel 2) and its companion case No. 111,502 Ken Yazel, Tuiso County Assessor v. … It shall be the mandatory duty of the board of county commissioners and the county excise board to prov1de the necessary funds to enable the county assessor to pay the costs necessary to be incurred in perfecting appeals