Case law

Hockaday v. Drye.

7 Okla. 288 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1898

In Mather v. McMillan, 19 N. W. 442 , the same court, after citing Haben v. … In Clayton v.

Gilmer v. School Dist. No. 26, Noble County

41 Okla. 12 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 25, 1913

Neither the statute quoted nor any other renders any act or proceeding of the board void because it is not recorded, nor makes the record of the board the only evidence of their actions” —citing Gillett v. … No. 2 v. Clark, 90 Mich. 435 , 51 N. W. 529 ; Indianapolis v. Imberry, 17 Ind. 175 ; School Dist. v. Atherton, 12 Metc. (Mass.) 113; Morgan v. Wilfley et al., 71 Iowa, 212 , 32 N. W. 265 ; Electric Co. v. Bd.

Osborn v. Osborn

353 P.2d 1 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 29, 1960

In Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Wilson, 172 Okl. 540 , 45 P.2d 750, 753 , the Court said: “In O’Neil v. … This is said in the fifth paragraph of the syllabus to Sears, Roebuck & Co. v.

Adkins v. Mustang Fuel Corp.

527 P.2d 842 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 2, 1974

Oklahoma City v. Excise Board of Okl. Co. et al., 193 Okl. 189 , 141 P.2d 805 (1943). Oklahoma City v. Excise Board of Okl. Co., supra, is distinguishable from Commercial Nat’l Bank v. … Robinson, 66 Okl. 235 , 168 P. 810 (1917); and Garvin v. Harris, Okl., 509 P.2d 119 (1973) in that in Oklahoma City v.

School District No. 58 v. School District No. 56

169 Okla. 613 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 16, 1934

The excise board not only had the right, but it was their duty to keep the school district’s appropriation within) this limit. In Palmer v. … In School District No. 85 v.

Blythe v. City of Tulsa

172 Okla. 586 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 11, 1935

Board of Com’rs of Franklin County v. City of Ottawa, supra; City of St. John v. Board of Commissioners of Stafford County, supra. … AVe held in the case of Board of Com’rs of Stafford Co. v. First Nat.

Jordan v. Davis

10 Okla. 329 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1900

county board of examiners. … The supreme court of the United States in the case Supervisors v. United States, 4 Wall. 435 , had under consideration the question as to when the word “may” in a statute imposes an imperative duty. Mr.

Cummings v. State Ex Rel. Wallower

47 Okla. 627 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 18, 1915

At the time, the personnel of the shareholders and the board of directors was the same. People ex rel. Wallace v. Sterling, 82 Ill. 457 ; Manufacturers, etc., Co. v. Landay, 219 Ill. 168 , 76 N. E. 146 . … Schneider v. Norris, 2 M. & S. 286; Streff v. Colteaux, 64 Ill. App. 179 ; National *636 Accident Society v. Spiro [ 78 Fed. 774 , 24 C. C. A. 334 ], 47 U. S. App. 293; Hamilton v. State, 103 Ind. 96 [ 2 N.

Jones v. Hanger

208 Okla. 628 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 9, 1953

refused to perform such ministerial duty for a reason *180 neither legally nor properly within the scope of its discretion, it may be compelled by mandamus to perform such ministerial duty. 34 Am.Jur. p. 863; Butterworth v. … S., 112 U.S. 50 , 5 S.Ct. 25 , 28 L.Ed. 656 ; Hopley, Treasurer, v. Benton, 38 Okl. 223 , 132 P. 808 ; Ryan v. Humphries, 50 Okl. 343 , 150 P. 1106 . Affirmed. HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. C.

Midland Valley R. Co. v. McLemore

73 Okla. 102 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 9, 1918

Co. v. Baertz, 36 Ind. App. 408 , 74 N. E. 51 ; Austin R. R. Co. v. Rucker et al., 59 Tex. 587 ; Railroad Co. v. Daniels, 62 Tex. 70 ; Murphy v. Adams, 71 Me. 113 , 36 Am. Rep. 299 : Railroad v. … W. 213 ; Brown v. School Dist., 48 Kan. 709 , 29 Pac. 1069 ; Insurance Co. v. Brown, 3 Kan. App. 225 , 44 Pac. 35 ;. Sutton et al. v. The Victorian, 26 Ore. 194 , 41 Pac. 1103 ; Duncan v.

Montgomery v. Hill

80 Okla. 230 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 15, 1921

In the case of Bilby v. Brown et al., 41 Okla. 98 , 137 Pac. 102 , the syllabus is as follows: “Plaintiff was in possession of the land in controversy by his tenants. … Brown v. Hartshorn, 12 Okla. 121 , 69 Pac. 1049 ; Dysart et al. v. Theodore J. Enslow, 7 Okla. 386 , 54 Pac. 550 ; Olds v. Conger, 1 Okla. 232 , 32 Pac. 337 ; Vansellous v.

Mason v. Ackley

52 Okla. 157 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 2, 1915

In Bank of Welch v. … et al. v.

Alberty v. Parks

128 Okla. 178 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 13, 1927

Co. v. City of Bartlesville, 27 Okla. 214 , 111 Pac. 207 ; Spradling v. Hudson, 45 Okla. 767 , 146 Pac. 588 . … Judge, 90 Okla. 170 , 221 Pac. 9 ; Kincannon v. Pugh, 114 Okla. 90 , 243 Pac. 945 .

Hembree v. City of Stilwell

597 P.2d 1218 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 17, 1979

Baggett v. State Election Board, Okl., 501 P.2d 817, 822-824 [1972]. … Edmondson v. State, Okl., 533 P.2d 604 [1975]; Baggett v. State Election Board, supra, at 824; Williamson v. State Election Board, Okl., 431 P.2d 352 [1967], We reaffirm today our commitment to the cited cases.

Town of Afton v. Gill

57 Okla. 36 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 28, 1916

Edwards v. Millar, supra; State v. Barnes, 22 Okla. 192 , 97 Pac. 997 ; Barnes v. Hill, 23 Okla. 207 , 99 Pac. 927 ; City of Ardmore v. State, 24 Okla. 862 , 104 Pac. 913 ; Coleman v. … In Kellogg v.

In Re Inglis

69 Okla. 64 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 14, 1917

In support of the text the following authorities are cited: Medley v. Elliott, 62 Ill. 532 ; Ralston v. Hughs, 13 Ill. 469 ; Morrison v. Hampton (Ky.) 49 S. W. 781 ; Beltram v. Willere (La. … Ann.) 4 South. 506 ; Williams v. Hilton, 35 Me. 547 , 58 Am. Dec. 729 ; Fuller v. Hodgdon, 25 Me. 243 .

Goree v. Cahill

35 Okla. 42 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 16, 1912

of an alleged election held in the town of Morris in that county on the 2d day of April, 1912, for the purpose of electing a board of trus *43 tees for the said town. … Robertson, 8 Ariz. 361 , 76 Pac. 465 ; Walker et al. v. Sanford, etc., 78 Ga. 165 , 1 S. E. 424 ; Melvin’s Case, 68 Pa. 333 ; State ex rel. Wannemaker v. Alder, 87 Wis. 554 , 58 N. W. 1045 ; Williams et al. v.

Purcell v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc.

961 P.2d 188 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1998

Hill v. Board of Education, 1997 OK 111, ¶ 12 , 944 P.2d 930, 933 ; Bryant v. Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, 1996 OK 134 , ¶ 11, 937 P.2d 496, 500 . … Hill v. Board of Education, supra , Bryant v. Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, supra . The Legislature has now removed the statutory language referring to the 12% rate as a penalty.

Childers v. Independent School District No. 1 of Bryan County

645 P.2d 992 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 20, 1981

See 75 O.S. § 322(l)(e), and Oklahoma Water Resources Board v. Central Oklahoma Mas *996 ter Conservancy District, 464 P.2d 748 (Okl.1969). … Oklahoma Water Resources Board v. Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District, supra.

State Ex Rel. Westbrook v. Oklahoma Public Welfare Comm.

196 Okla. 586 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 1946

There is nothing in the Federal Constitution to prevent the establishment of boards or tribunals or agencies for administrative purposes with power to make final decisions on legal questions. Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. … See, also, Criswell v. Board, 93 Wash. 468 , 161 P. 361 ; Helms v. Alabama, 231 Ala. 183 , 163 So. 807 , and other cases.