Case law

Bonaparte v. Tradesmen's National Bank

175 Okla. 530 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 21, 1936

effect of which, is in controversy, the board- stated to Mr. … erroneous assessment to such board, as the law provides.

State Ex Rel. Dabney v. Sheldon

135 Okla. 278 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1929

In State v. … In Hackfield & Co. v. United States, 49 L.

Olson v. Logan County Bank

29 Okla. 391 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 12, 1911

Mathews v. Board of Corporation Commissioners, 97 Fed. 400 . … In Board of Education of City of Ardmore v.

Cave Springs Public School District I-30 v. Blair

613 P.2d 1046 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 1, 1980

Seventeen Hundred Peoria, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, Okl., 422 P.2d 840 (1966); Forston v. Heisler, Okl., 363 P.2d 949 (1961). … The school district cites 70 O.S.1971, § 5-117, as giving it discretionary powers in the operation of the school and Ehret v.

Dean v. City of New Cornell

151 Okla. 149 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 15, 1931

S. 1921, and is still in force and effect, then the case of Berry v. City of Stillwater, 49 Okla. 560 , 153 P. 870 , would be controlling. Section 4593, C. O. … district, or board of education within the district to be assessed .

Incorporated Town of Stigler v. Wiley

36 Okla. 291 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 26, 1912

(Pinch v. Brown, 27 Okla. 217 , 111 Pac. 391 ; Everett v. Akins, 8 Okla. 184 , 56 Pac. 1062 ; Boyd v. Bryan, 11 Okla. 56 , 65 Pac. 940 .) … In Finch v. Brown, supra, it was held: “To consider this assignment would require us to review the evidence, but the case-made contains no recital or averment that it contains all the evidence introduced at the trial.

Price v. Storms

191 Okla. 410 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 6, 1942

In Ruth v. … In McClintock v.

Bank of Picher v. Morris

157 Okla. 122 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 3, 1932

Co. v. … “In Pitts v. First Nat. Bank of Muskogee, 138 Okla. 284 , 281 P. 133 , this court said: “ ‘Every municipality must submit its-budget to the excise board of their respective counties. City of Sapulpa v.

Lowden v. Luther

190 Okla. 31 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 1941

See Oklahoma City v. Grigsby, 171 Okla. 23 , 41 P. 2d 697 ; Dowell v. Board of Education, 185 Okla. 342 , 91 P.2d 771 ; State ex rel. Oklahoma State Highway Commission v. … Palmer, 13 Mich. 104 ; Thompson v. Abbott, 61 Mo. 176 ; Board of Education v. Board of Ed’n, 30 W. Va. 424 , 4 S. E. 640 ; Wilson v. School District, 233 Mich. 581 , 207 N. W. 810 ; Rapp v.

American-First National Bank v. Peterson

169 Okla. 588 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 1934

See Grier v. Kramer et al., 62 Okla. 151 , 162 P. 490 ; Berryhill et al. v. City of Sapulpa, 97 Okla. 65 , 222 P. 555 ; Morrow v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 27 Okla. 247 , 111 P. 198 ; Flanagan v. … Co. v.

Common School Dist. No. 32 v. Independent School Dist. No. 56

75 Okla. 70 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 10, 1919

There being no appeal or other adequate remedy, the writ of cer-tiorari will lie to bring up the record of commissions or boards created by law for review as to jurisdictional errors only. Baker v. … Parmenter et al. v. Ray, supra.

Alford v. Bonaparte

125 Okla. 164 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 17, 1927

was unconstitutionally created, It further app'ears, from the plaintiff’s petition, that no attempt was ever made by the said board to function as an excise board. … This exact question- has, on this date, been decided against the contentions of th'e plaintiff in an opinion by this court in the case of Wirt Frankin v. M. S.

Shultz v. Jones

3 Okla. 504 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 27, 1895

We held, in the case of Twine v. Carey, 2 Okla. … (Maddox v. Burnham, 156 U. S. 544 .) This case comes -within the rule announced in the case of Twine v. Carey, supra, and on the authority of that case must be reversed.

New v. Saunders

86 Okla. 97 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 28, 1922

Moore v. St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co., 268 Mo. 31 , 186 S. W. 1035 ; Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33 , 60 L. Ed. 874 . In the case of Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. … Co. v.

Boyd v. Robinson

47 Okla. 591 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 8, 1915

Brown, Polly Boyd, Laura Lock, Willard Brown, and D. J. Allen or Wofford, seeking to quiet title to cer *592 tain real estate in J. R. … Thompson et al. v. Fulton, 29 Okla. 700 , 119 Pac. 244 ; Kansas City, M. & O. R. Co. v. Williams, 33 Okla. 202 , 124 Pac. 63 ; American Nat. Bank v. Linotype Co., 31 Okla. 533 , 122 Pac. 507 ; Bowles et al. v.

Haddock v. Johnson

80 Okla. 250 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 14, 1920

This same construction of this section of the Constitution was reaffirmed by this court *252 in the case of Montgomery v. State Election Board, 27 Okla. 324 , 111 Pac. 447 . … Oil Co. v. Bartlett, 236 Fed. 488 ; Barnett v. Kunkel, 259 Fed. 394 ; State v. Huser, 76 Okla. 130 , 184 Pac. 113 .

In Re Commercial Credit Co.

193 Okla. 497 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1944

Here the taxpayer filed his notice of appeal two days after the board’s order. … J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and BAYLESS, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. RILEY and OSBORN, JJ., absent.

Cummings v. McDermid

4 Okla. 272 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1896

In Myers v. … (Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall, 72; Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U. S. 330 -340; Moore v.

MAREE v. NEUWIRTH

374 P.3d 750 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 7, 2016

Art. 7, § 4, Baby F. v. Oklahoma County Dist. Court, 2015 OK 24 , ¶ 8, 348 P.3d 1080 ; James v. Rogers, 1987 OK 20, ¶ 5 , 734 P.2d 1298 . … Baby F. v. Oklahoma County Dist. Court, 2015 OK 24 , ¶ 8, 348 P.3d 1080 ; James v.

OKLAHOMA SCHOOLS RISK MANAGEMENT TRUST v. LEXINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

2026 OK 38 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 27, 2026

Baughman v. World Acceptance Corp ., 2025 OK 57 576 P.3d 931 de novo . Mills v. J-M Mfg. Co., Inc ., 2025 OK 23 567 P.3d 385 de novo review. Hirschfeld v. Oklahoma Tpk. … Owens v.