Case law

In Re Texas Co.'s Assessment

168 Okla. 94 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 27, 1934

The case of New England Oil & Pipe Line Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 121 Okla. 277 , 249 P. 914 , also relied upon by plaintiff, is not in point. … Meriwether v. Lovett, 166 Okla. 73 , 26 P. (2d) 200 .

Appeal of Estes

580 P.2d 977 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 2, 1978

The first circuit in Mestre Morera v. … United States v. Glasgow, 389 F.Supp. 217 (D.D.C.1975). . See Fite v. Retail Credit Co., 386 F.Supp. 1045 (D.Mont.1975); United States v. McMains, 540 F.2d 387 (8th Cir. 1976) for view record is not expunged. .

W. W. Bennett & Co. v. La Fayette

133 Okla. 233 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 23, 1928

Under the holding in the case of Littlefield v. Brown, 68 Okla. 144 , 172 Pac. 643 ; Rice v. Bontjes, 121 Okla. 292 , 250 Pac. 89 ; Harmon v. … Board of Equalization of Oklahoma Co. v. First State Bank of Oklahoma City, 77 Okla. 291 , 188 Pac. 115 . In' the body of the opinion, in the case of Nation v.

Leonard v. Stepp

175 Okla. 487 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 14, 1936

Bass Maxwell & Co. v. Independent Gin Co. 140 Okla. 80 , 282 P. 635 ; Wagnon v Brown. 169 Okla. 292 , 36 P. (2d) 723 ; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Brown, 170 Okla. 67 . 38 P. (2d) 529 .

Huston v. Curtis Companies, Inc.

160 Okla. 216 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 6, 1932

Inc., v. … In Sowers v.

Rumph, County Treasurer v. Joines

38 Okla. 30 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 14, 1912

bore to all the other property in the state; that the State Board of Equalization increased the valuation of every county in the state, claiming that the same was not fixed at its fair valuation, and raised the valuation … McNeal from the State Board of Equalization, 35 Okla. 17 , 128 Pac. 285 , and Ira Williams, as County-Cleric of Garfield County v. Garfield Exchange Bank, post, 13d Pac. 863.

First Nat. Bank of Alex v. Southland Production Co.

189 Okla. 9 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 18, 1941

Gilmer v. Hunt, 167 Okla. 175 , 29 P. 2d 59 ; Dickson v. Wright, 169 Okla. 159 , 36 P. 2d 280 ; Board of Com’rs of Pott. Co. v. Alexander, 68 Okla. 126 , 172 P. 436 . … Additional authorities supporting the view herein announced are: Fox v. Dunning et al., 124 Okla. 228 , 255 P. 582 ; Dunlap v. Carter County, Board of Commissioners, 85 Okla. 295 , 205 P. 1100 ; Griffin et al. v.

City of Tulsa v. Crain

573 P.2d 707 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 10, 1978

J., LAVENDER, V. C. J., and WILLIAMS, IRWIN, BERRY and BARNES, JJ., concur. . Tulsa — Rev. … Harrell v. Horton, 401 P.2d 461 (Okl.1965). . See Donovan v. City of Santa Monica, 88 Cal.App.2d 386 , 199 P.2d 51 (1949). . Semke v. State ex rel.

Blair v. Board of Regents ex rel. Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges ex rel. Oklahoma State University of Agricultural & Applied Sciences

421 P.2d 228 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 13, 1966

See Phillips v. Ladd, Okl., 399 P.2d 501, 504 , and Choctaw Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission, Okl., 295 P.2d 800, 806 , citing Mortgage Bond Co. v. Stephens, 181 Okl. 419 , 74 P.2d 361 . … Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v.

Stidham v. Special Indemnity Fund

10 P.3d 880 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 2, 2000

State Industrial Commission, 1952 OK 307 , 248 P.2d 616, 619 ; Scott v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin County, 1941 OK 379 , 119 P.2d 56, 57 . 17 . … Velvet Dove Restaurant, 1988 OK 68 , 756 P.2d 1232, 1234 ; Pirrong v. Pirrong, 1976 OK 36 , 552 P.2d 383, 387 ; Pointer v. Hill, 1975 OK 73 , 536 P.2d 358, 361 ; Brown v.

McConnell v. Town Clerk of Tipton

704 P.2d 479 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 23, 1985

The effect of this statute was addressed in Keaton v. … Jones v. Hanger, 208 Okl. 628 , 258 P.2d 176 (1953). 2 . Nixon v. Roberts, 420 P.2d 898 (Okl.1966); Adair County Excise Board v.

School District No. 76 v. Capitol National Bank

7 Okla. 45 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1898

(Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 266 ; Mobile v. Watson, 116 U. S. 289 , 6 Sup. Ct. 398; Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 Wall. 1 ; Mt. Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 514 .) … of this act, may have his remedy by a writ of mandamus against such district or township school board, or board of county commissioners in any court having jurisdiction, and such action may be brought in the name of the

Stevenson v. Friend

196 Okla. 249 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 1945

Co. v. Taylor, 87 Okla. 140 , 209 P. 749 . … See Stith v. Dana, supra, and First Nat. Bank v. Anderson, Co. Auditor, 196 Iowa, 587 , 192 N. W. 6 ; Sartin v. Moran-Buckner, 189 Okla. 178 , 114 P. 2d 938 ; Oklahoma City v. Wells, 185 Okla. 369 , 91 P. 2d 1077 .

Franklin v. Ryan

125 Okla. 161 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 17, 1927

Payne v. Ross, 95 Okla. 273 , 219 Pac. 144 ; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. … This court, in the case of Schaff, Receiver, v. Borum, County Treasurer, 82 Okla. 284 , 200 Pac. 191 , and Simmons v.

In Re Moore

182 Okla. 330 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 1, 1938

This section was construed in the case of Board of Com'rs of Canadian Co. v. … J., BAYLESS, V. C. J., and WELCH, PHELPS, CORN, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. RILEY and HURST, JJ., dissent.

State Ex Rel. Decker v. Stanfield

34 Okla. 524 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 20, 1912

This conclusion is supported by Board of County Com’rs of D. County v. Gillett, 9 Okla. 593, 60 Pac. 277; Buchanan v. City of Litchfield, 102 U. S. 278 , 26 L. Ed. 138 ; Litchfield v. Ballou, 114 U. S. 190 , 5 Sup. … Ed. 132 ; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662 , 9 Sup. Ct. 651, 32 L. Ed. 1060 ; Doon Twp. v. Cummins, 142 U. S. 366 ; 12 Sup. Ct. 222, 35 L. Ed. 1044 ; City of Guthrie v.

Gibson Products Co. v. Murphy

186 Okla. 714 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 27, 1940

There the act was to become operative upon approval within limited time by the Federal Social Security Board, as provided in section 903, Title IX, of the Federal Act, and therein was considered a provision that “the operation … Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 94 Conn. 47 , 108 Atl. 154 , affirmed 254 U. S. 113 . See, also, Hagood v. Doughton, 195 N. C. 811 , 143 S. E. 841 ; Brown v. State, 323 Mo. 138 , 19 S. W. 2d 12 ; People v.

Milam v. Smith-Mauer Bros.

38 Okla. 328 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 10, 1913

The authority of the board of county commissioners to correct the defects or errors in the assessment of tax rolls is statutory, and must be strictly confined to the limits marked out by the statute. Bostick v. Bd. Co. … That the board of county commissioners and the district court were without jurisdiction of the application of plaintiffs for the correction of the assessment is, in effect, determined by Bostick v.

Ferrell v. Town of Mountain View

127 Okla. 246 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 27, 1927

The board of trustees could not, by such an unauthorized order or resolution, bind the town and release the treasurer from liabil- Counsel for plaintiff in error cite the case. of State ex rel. v. … PlaIntiff also cites the cue of Stephens v. City of Ludlow (Ky.) 169 S. W. 473 , and the case of Commonwealth v. Godshaw (Ky.) 17 S. W. 737 .

Hine v. Gokey

23 Okla. 870 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 2, 1909

Lynch, and George Carrico, as members of the board of the county commissioners of said county, and Charles McCafferty, treasurer, and the John Gilligan Company, to enjoin them from furnishing, constructing, or erecting certain … S. v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88 , 20 L. Ed. 153 ; Smock v. Farmers’ Union State Bank, 22 Okla. 825 , 98 Pac. 945 ; State v. Studt et al., 31 Kan. 245 , 1 Pac. 635 .