Case law

In Re Wickstrum

454 P.2d 660 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 15, 1969

School District No. 9 of Tulsa County v. … Dowell v. Board of Education of Oklahoma City, 185 Okl. 342 , 91 P.2d 771 .

Berryhill v. Carter

76 Okla. 248 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 4, 1919

The first question raised is whether the guardian has an adequate remedy at law— if so, this suit must fail. 6 Cyc. 742; Baker v. Newton, 22 Okla. 658 , 98 Pac. 931 . … court of the county in which the board was sitting.

Creek County v. Robinson

114 Okla. 163 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 23, 1925

Co. v. Cherokee County, supra; and in Allen & Rixse v. … The court then quotes from Allen & Rixse v.

Vaughn v. Jones

179 Okla. 545 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 9, 1937

J. 63; Brown v. Quinton (1909) 80 Kan. 44 , 102 P. 242 , 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 71, 18 Ann. Cas. 290; Riedy v. Bidwell (1925, Cal.) 233 P. 995 ; Judy v. Guaranty Trust Co. (1936, Wash.) 59 P. (2d) 745 . … J. 825; Brown v. Quinton, supra; Blair v. Hall (Mo. App.) 201 S. W. 945 ; Hanson v. Blake (W. Va.) 60 S. E. 589 . See, also, Allen v. Clover Valley Lumber Co. (1935) 171 Okla. 238 , 42 P. (2d) 850 .

Exchange National Co. v. City of Shawnee

172 Okla. 574 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 11, 1935

OSBORN, V. C. J. … See, also, Independent School District No. 39 of Creek County v. Exchange National Company, 164 Okla. 176 , 23 P. (2d) 210 ; Board of Trustees of Incorporated Town of Broken Bow v. Fishman Realty & Inv.

Graham v. Childers

114 Okla. 38 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 3, 1925

Federation v. Salt Lake County (Utah) 61 Pac. 222 ; New Orleans v. Clark, 24 L. Ed. (U. S.) 521; Guilford v. Cornell, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 615; Lycoming v. Union, , 15 Pa. St. 166; People v. … See, also, Cayuga Conty v. State, 183 N. Y. Supp. 646 ; Oswego & Syracuse R. R. Co. v. State, 226 N. Y. 351 ; Ulster v. State (N. Y.) 69 N. E. 370 .

Brians v. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 5, Okmulgee

183 Okla. 29 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 24, 1938

In Board of Education of Town of Terral v. … To hold otherwise would be to say that the school board could do indirectly (by ratification) what it could not do directly (by contract).” In O’Neil Eng. Co. v.

School District No. 60 of Ellis County v. Crabtree

146 Okla. 197 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 11, 1930

There is some conflict in the evidence as to the purpose of that meeting, the date on which it was held, and whether or not it conformed to the rule stated in Board of Ed. of Town of Carney v. … LESTER, V. C. J., and HUNT and RILEY, JJ., absent.

Rice v. State Ex Rel. Short

108 Okla. 4 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 9, 1924

Cook et al. v. United States, 91 U. S. 389 , 23 L. Ed. 237 ; United States v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53 , 24 L. Ed. 65 ; United States v. Commercial Co., 74 Fed. 145 ; see, also, Fretz v. … Ass’n v.

Garr v. Minnick

100 Okla. 109 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 24, 1924

McAlester v. Williams, 77 Okla. 65 , 186 Pac. 461 ; Sierzek et al. v. Smith et al., 86 Okla. 797 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Beaty v. Armstrong, 95 Okla. 109 , 218 Pac. 516 . … J. 595, section 615; Brown v. Coppedge 54 Okla. 88 , 153 Pac. 817 : Levin v. Cook, 84 Okla. 55 , 202 Pac. 299 . 3.

Rogers, Treasurer v. Duncan

57 Okla. 20 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 28, 1916

Greer v. McNeal, 11 Okla. 519 , 69 Pac. 891 ; Ex parte Brown, 3 Okla. Cr. 329 , 105 Pac. 577 ; 24 Cyc.; Sockey et al. v. Winstock, 43 Okla. 758 , 144 Pac. 372 . … Lake County v. Sulphur Bank Quicksilver Mining Co., 66 Cal. 18 , 4 Pac. 876 ; Ames v. People, 26 Colo. 83 , 56 Pac. 656 ; Hamilton v. Fondulac, 25 Wis. 490 ; Bird v. Benlisa, 142 U. S. 664 , 12 Sup. Ct. 323, 35 L.

Bowen v. Brock

206 Okla. 516 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 1952

In the motion request is made that the court take notice of its files and records in district court Case No. 19326, being entitled, The State of Oklahoma, Plaintiff, v. Mrs. Curtis Thompson, President, J. W. … Bynum v. Strain, 95 Okla. 45 , 218 P. 883 ; Wentz v. Thomas, 159 Okla. 124 , 15 P. 2d 65 .

George L. Verity Management Development Corp. v. Keyes

63 O.B.A.J. 1924 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1992

On the third Monday of September (the date the Board was to have ended its session according to 68 O.S.Supp.1985, § 2459) 1 there were still several thousand protests the Board had not been able to consider. … The authority of the Equalization Board, after its statutory adjournment date, to adjust and equalize assessments pursuant to timely filed protests, is affirmatively established by our opinion in Castro v.

Maddox v. Hunt

183 Okla. 465 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1938

Reardon v. … J. 714, sec 66; Glasco v. State Election Board (1926) 121 Okla. 119 , 248 P. 642 , and authorities therein cited.

Protest of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

164 Okla. 239 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 13, 1933

In re Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., 43 Okla. 307 , 142 P. 997 ; Board of Com’rs v. Ryan, Co. Treas., 107 Okla. 278 , 232 P. 834 ; Board of Com’rs v. … State Board, 155 Okla. 183 , 8 P. (2d) 732 ; El Reno Wholesale Groc. Co. v. Taylor, 87 Okla. 140 , 209 P. 749 ; Protest of Eirst Nat. Bank of Guthrie, 136 Okla. 141 , 276 P. 766 ; Prince, Co. Treas., v. St. L.-S. F. Ry.

Silver Griddle Co. v. City of Oklahoma City

570 P.2d 619 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 26, 1977

Martin v. Harrah Independent School District, supra; Melton v. City of Durant, supra. … Lincoln Income Life Insurance Co. v. Wood, 556 P.2d 602 (Okl.1976); Martin v. Harrah Independent School District, supra.

City of Grandfield v. Hammonds

100 Okla. 75 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 15, 1924

The boards were placed back exactly as they were except the board that was broken and another board was substituted in place of the broken board. … In the case of Turner v.

THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OKLAHOMA v. ZIRIAX

463 P.3d 524 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 4, 2020

TYREE Discussed 2009 OK 9 , 204 P.3d 58 , IN THE MATTER OF REINSTATEMENT OF PACENZA Discussed 2014 OK 8 , 319 P.3d 674 , GENTGES v. OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD Discussed 2018 OK 39 , 419 P.3d 224 , GENTGES v. … OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD Discussed 2019 OK 6 , 441 P.3d 1094 , MCINTOSH v. WATKINS Discussed 2019 OK 83 , VIDEO GAMING TECHNOLOGIES v. ROGERS COUNTY BD. OF TAX ROLL CORRECTIONS Cited Title 12.

Schaff, Rec. v. Borum, Co. Treas.

82 Okla. 284 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 1921

Co. v. Scammon (Kan.) 25 Pac. 858 ; B. & M. R. Co. v. Board County Commissioners (Neb.) 11 N. W. 332 ; Wells Co. v. McHenry (N. D.) 74 N. W. Rep. 241 . … Co. v. Lane, 69 Oklahoma, 170 Pac. 502 . We believe that the rule announced in the case of Lusk et al. v. White, and Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v.

Hardy Sanitarium v. Dehart

164 Okla. 29 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 23, 1933

Kindall v. McBirney (Idaho) 11 P. (2d) 370 ; Employers Liability Assur. Corp. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 187 Cal. 615 , 203 P. 95 ; J. B. Herd Hardware Co. v. … Co. v. Thomas, 162. Okla. 5, 18 P. (2d) 891 ; Rorabaugh-Brown Dry Goods Co. v. Mathews, 162 Okla. 283 , 20 P. (2d) 141 . This jurisdictional question has been considered recently by the court in several cases.