Case law

Lingo-Leeper Lumber Co. v. Carter

161 Okla. 5 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 15, 1932

Carter, Auditor of the state of Oklahoma, requiring him to act upon a certain cKlim filed with him and issue a warrant therefor, said claim having been approved by the State Board of Public Affairs for material and supplies … CLARK, V. C. J., and OÜLLISON, J., absent. LESTER, O. J., not participating.

Hollarn v. Alden

187 Okla. 35 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 12, 1940

and not as a “member of the board of education” of the district, and that Hickman was elected as “director of the school board” and not as a member of the board of education of said district. … Cameron v.

In Re the Discharge of White

355 P.2d 404 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 9, 1960

See Firemen’s Relief and Pension Board of City of Holdenville v. Lucas, 189 Okl. 328 , 117 P.2d 112 ; Board of Trustees of Firemen’s Relief and Pension Fund of Oklahoma City v. … Pelham, 180 Okl. 44 , 67 P.2d 794 ; Board of Trustees of Firemen’s Relief and Pension Fund of Town of Thomas v.

Waldock v. Winkler

51 Okla. 485 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 5, 1915

Parks v. Brown, 16 Ill. 454 . Possession of the note is prima facie evidence of ownership, and' a payee or indorsee in possession may recover, notwithstanding an indorsement of his name on the back thereof. Laflin v. … Parks v. Brown, 16 Ill. 454 ; Henderson et al. v. Davisson, 157 Ill. 379 , 41 N. E. 560 ; Williams v. Norton, 3 Kan. 295 ; Alderton v. Williams et al., 130 Mich. 626 , 90 N. W. 661 ; Van Vlissingen v. Roth, 121 Ill.

Jones v. Balsley & Rogers

25 Okla. 344 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 14, 1909

In Paper Co. v. … Co. v.

Cimarron Pipeline Construction, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Co.

64 O.B.A.J. 826 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 16, 1993

Co. v. Erwin, 145 P. at 1127. In Hubbard v. … See, 15 O.S.1991, §§ 233A and 233B; Commercial Communications, Inc. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Board of Public Affairs, 613 P.2d 473 (Okla.1980); Baker v. Massey, 569 P.2d 987 (Okla.1977); Z.D. Howard Company v.

Riley v. Cordell

200 Okla. 390 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 19, 1948

Bailey v. … In Wimberly v.

Wentz v. Potter

167 Okla. 154 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 5, 1933

See, also, State Banking Board v. Oklahoma Bankers Trust Co., 63 Okla. 260 , 164 P. 660 ; State Banking Board v. Oklahoma Bankers Trust Co., 49 Okla. 72 , 151 P. 566 ; Lankford v. … Schroeder, 47 Okla. 279 , 147 P. 1049 ; Lovett v. Lankford, 47 Okla. 12 , 145 P. 767 : Board of Commissioners v. Hancock, 96 Okla. 238 , 221 p. 429; Whiteneck v.

Williams v. Dickey

204 Okla. 629 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 29, 1951

This statement is sustained by Butcher v. Maybury, 8 F. 2d 155 ; Mahaney v. Cisco (Tex. Civ. App.) 248 S. W. 420 ; Commonwealth v. Briggs, 34 Pa. Dist. & Co. 97; In re Oleomargarine Licenses, 19 Pa. Dist. 927, 37 Pa. … In Schireson v.

Ellis v. Outler

25 Okla. 469 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 11, 1910

Moses on Mandamus, c. 26 pp. 222, 225; State v. King et al., 29 Kan. 607 ; State ex rel. v. Board of Supervisors of Mineral Point, 22 Wis. 396 ; Hempstead v. Underhill, 20 Ark. 337; Commonwealth v. Brady, 6 Phila. … (Pa.) 121; State v. Elkinton et al., 30 N. J. Law, 335; Board of Com’rs of Clarke County v. State ex rel. Lewis, 61 Ind. 75 ; Potts v. State ex rel. Ogg, 75 Ind. 336 .

St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Love

29 Okla. 523 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 26, 1911

Good et al. v. Keel et al., ante, 116 Pac. 777 ; Walbridge v. Board of County Com’ rs, supra; I Elliott on Roads and Streets (3d Ed.) § 438. … Deeter, supra; Henry v. Ward et al., 49 Neb. 392 , 68 N. W. 518 ; Oyler v. Ross, 48 Neb. 211 , 66 N. W. 1099 ; Livingston v. Board of County Com’rs of Johnson County, 42 Neb. 277 , 60 N. W. 555 ; Beatty et al. v.

Persons v. Penn

33 Okla. 581 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 1, 1912

party took any steps by proceeding in court toward compelling the board to prepare such ballots. … Curtis, 4 Idaho, 193 , 38 Pac. 405 ; Atkeson v. Lay, 115 Mo. 538 , 22 S. W. 481 ; State ex rel. Woody v. Rotwitt, 18 Mont. 502 , 46 Pac. 370 .

Schaff v. Rea

103 Okla. 62 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 30, 1924

Co. v. Lane, 69 Okla. 145 , 170 Pac. 502 ; Board of Ed. of City of Guthrie v. Excise Board of Logan County, 86 Okla. 24 , 206 Pac. 517 . The act of 1921, chapter 48, sec. 1, Sess. … Board of Ed., City of Guthrie v.

In Re App. of Bd. of Education of Western Hts. Independent Sch. Dist.

565 P.2d 677 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 9, 1977

In support of this position, Applicant relies primarily on Green v. Board of Commissioners of Lincoln County, 126 Okl. 300 , 259 P. 635 (1927), urging it is dispositive in the instant case. … The Green court, in considering the term “proceedings begun” and in construing Article V, Section 54, supra, noted: “In other words, when the board of county commissioners, by their resolution and notice, put the machinery

State Ex Rel. Department of Human Services v. Malibie

630 P.2d 310 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 18, 1981

In Board of Com’rs of Logan County v. State ex. rel. … In 1936, in the case of Board of Com’rs of LeFlore County v. Central Nat.

Louis v. Alton Metal Products Company

408 P.2d 326 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 23, 1965

Brown, 207 Okl. 441 , 250 P.2d 34 . … Wholesale v.

Westgate Oil Co. v. Refineries Production Co.

172 Okla. 260 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 14, 1935

The application was denied and an appeal was taken to the board of adjustment, which board granted the permit. … In the case of Swindall v.

Naylor v. Carter

167 Okla. 125 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 12, 1933

The Supreme Court of Utah, in the case of Peterson v. … In the case of Cousins v.

Taylor v. Callahan

82 Okla. 67 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 24, 1921

Plaintiffs in error state this is an overlapping lease and void for the reasons stated in the case of Brown v. Van Pelt, 64 Okla. 109 , 166 Pac. 102 ; it being their contention! … Plaintiffs in error attempt to assume that Brown v.

Turlington v. Summers

162 Okla. 13 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 31, 1933

In the case of Madrid v. Sandoval, 13 P. (2d) 877 , the Supreme Court of New Mexico on this question says: “The governing rules are well stated by Mr. Justice Brewer in Hudson v. … the statute, and that while in such custody they have not been so exposed to the reach of unauthorized persons as to afford a reasonable probability of their having been changed or tampered with,’ * * * “As said in Hannah v.