Case law

In Re Riddle's Estate

165 Okla. 248 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 12, 1933

In the case of Peace v. … In this connection see Potts v. First State Bank of Talihina, 51 Okla. 162 , 151 P. 859 ; Grant v. Mathis, 96 Okla. 65 , 220 P. 331 .

Prairie Pipe Line Co. v. Excise Bd. of Pottawatomie

168 Okla. 250 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 15, 1934

This is an appeal by Prairie Pipe Line Company, a corporation, et al. against the excise board of Pottawatomie county from a judgment of the Court of Tax Review. … CULLISON, V. C. J., and SWINDALL, ANDREWS, McNEILL, and BUSBY, JJ., concur. RILEY, C. J., and BAYLESS and WELCH, JJ., absent.

Chapman v. Draughons School of Business, Inc.

287 P.2d 903 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 5, 1955

Keaton v. Bonaparte, 174 Okl. 316 , 50 P.2d 404 .” Lairmore v. Board of County Com’rs, Okmulgee County, 200 Okl. 436 , 195 P.2d 762, 764 . The quoted rule has always been followed in this jurisdiction. … Smith v. Board of Com’rs, 26 Okl. 819 , 110 P. 669 ; Garvin County v. Lindsay Bridge Co., 32 Okl. 784 , 124 P. 324 ; Fast v. Rogers, 30 Okl. 289 , 119 P. 241 ; Harris v. Smiley, 36 Okl. 89 , 128 P. 276 ; Turner v.

Moran v. State Ex Rel. Derryberry

534 P.2d 1282 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 2, 1975

In State v. … In State v.

Eason Oil Company v. Uhls

518 P.2d 50 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 8, 1974

The trial court was obligated to uphold the Board of Adjustment unless there clearly was an arbitrary or abusive exercise of discretion. As stated in Anderson-Kerr v. … Van Meter v.

Quaker Oil & Gas Co. v. Jane Oil & Gas Co.

63 Okla. 234 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 17, 1917

Among them are Campbell et al. v. Seaman, 63 N. Y. 568 , 20 Am. Rep. 567 ; Penrhyn Slate Co. v. Granville Elec. & L. Co., 181 N. Y. 80 , 73 N. E. 566 , 2 Ann. Cas. 782; Godwin, Adm’x, v. … Co. v. Osgood. 26 Conn. 16 ; Chestatee Pyrites. Co. v. Cavenders Creek Gold Min. Co., 118 Ga. 255 , 45 S. E. 267 ; Eau Claire Dells Imp. Co. v. City of Eau Claire, 134 Wis. 548 , 115 N. W. 155, 159 ; Swan v.

In Re Assessment of St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.

120 Okla. 289 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 7, 1926

This is the full scope of the section and the limit of the power of the State Board of Equalization. Wolverton Hardware Co. v. Porter, Comanche County Treasurer, 61 Okla. 171 , 160 Pac. 906 ; Scott v. … Board of County Commissioners of Muskogee county et al., 100 Okla. 77 , 227 Pac. 448 ; Kramer v. Gypsy Oil Co., 68 Okla. 212 , 173 Pac. 802 . ' The order of the State Board of Equalization appealed from is reversed.

Dunham v. Ardery

43 Okla. 619 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 15, 1914

People v. Los Angeles, 133 Cal. 338 , 65 Pac. 749 ; Bd. Com’rs v. State ex rel. Cobb, 31 Okla. 196 , 120 Pac. 913 ; Norris v. Cross, 25 Okla. 287 , 105 Pac. 1000 ; Montgomery v. State Elec. … Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497, 599 , appx., 10 L. Ed, 559, 609; U. S. v. Black, 128 U. S. 40 , 9 Sup. Ct. 12, 32 L. Ed. 354 ; U. S. v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284 , 15 L. Ed. 102 ; Commissioners v.

Hunt v. Logan

390 P.2d 918 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 24, 1964

In the case of Aubrey v. … In the case of Board of Com’rs of Creek County v.

Coyle v. Smith

28 Okla. 121 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 1911

Ed. 97 ; Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507 , 12 L. Ed. 535 ), and this rule was given proper weight in Higgins v. Brown, supra. There is room for the application of the rule in the case at bar. … In the case of Blue Jacket, for Himself and Other Members of the United Tribe of Shawnee Indians, Residing in Kansas, v. Board of Commissioners of County of Johnson, 5 Wall. 737 , 18 L.

Trapp v. Dykes

140 Okla. 63 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 3, 1929

Silberschein v. U. S., 285 Fed. 397 ; Crawford v. Cassity, 78 Okla. 261 , 190 Pac. 412 ; Tripp v Board of Education (Kan.) 227 Pac. 345 ; Dixon County v. Field, 111 U. S. 83 , 28 L. Ed. 360 . … The Supreme Court of the United States, in the ease of Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.

Loftis v. School District No. 52

144 Okla. 281 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 8, 1930

Stat. 1921) and a decision of this court (Board of Education v. Woodworth, 89 Okla. 192 , 214 Pac. 1077 ) are against them. … It is the contention of counsel for plaintiffs in error that in the case of Board of Education v. Woodworth, supra, only an interpretation of the statute was considered, and not its constitutionality.

In Re Purdy

166 Okla. 31 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 1933

0ULLIS10N, V. C. X W. C. Purdy was a member of the Oklahoma Bar. Mrs. Marie Listen preferred charges against W. O. Purdy, which said charges were heard by the local administrative committee of the State Bar. … The case is here for review of the order of the Board of Governors disbarring said W. C. Purdy.

State Ex Rel. v. Houser

121 Okla. 200 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 31, 1926

“Be it Resolved by the Board of County Commissioners' of Garvin county, Oklahoma : “That township government within Garvin county, Oklahoma, has heretofore been abolished. and the board of county commissioners of Garvin county … J., BRANSON, V. C. J., and HARRISON and LESTER, XT.,' concur.

Saxon v. National Surety Co.

129 Okla. 300 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 6, 1928

Shipman, Adm’r, v. Brown, 36 Okla. 623 , 130 Pac. 603 . … Brown v. Trent, 36 Okla. 239 , 128 Pac. 895 . The finding of the court, above quoted, in the action against the surety, is of fraud of such nature.

Poley v. Browne

199 Okla. 416 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 18, 1947

Thomas, 130 Ga. 153 , 60 S.E. 461 ; Boyd v. Portland Elec. Co., 41 Ore. 336 , 68 P. 810 ; Charette v. Village L’Anse, 154 Mich. 304 , 117 N.W. 737 ; Denver Consol. Elec. Co. v. … Midland Oil Co. v. Thigpen (1924) 4 F. 2d 85 ; Spellman et al. v. Sherry, 181 Okla. 174 , 72 P. 2d 793 .

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

41 Okla. 314 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 1913

Co. v. Brown, 32 Okla. 483, 122 Pac. 136 . We have read the testimony very carefully, and fail to find any evidence tending to show any negligence on the part of the employees of the railway company. … Co. v. Brown, supra, the correct rule is that the railroad company is required to exercise only ordinary care to avoid injuring trespassing animals after they are discovered on or in dangerous proximity to the track.

Haunstein v. State Bar of Oklahoma

172 Okla. 610 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 18, 1935

Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Lotterman et al. (Ill.) 187 N. E. 424 ; In re Hadwiger et al., 167 Okla. 307 , 27 P. (2d) 604 . … J., OSBORN, V. O. J., and BUSBY, PHELPS, and GIBSON, JJ., concur. RILEY and BAYLESS, JJ., dissent. WELCH, J., absent.

Protest of St. Louis-S. F. Ry. C.

163 Okla. 1 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 14, 1933

The contentions of the protestant are based largely on the decisions of this court in Foster v. Board of County Com’rs, 129 Okla. 246 , 264 P. 615 , and County Excise Board v. Foster, 153 Okla. 81 , 4 P. (2d) 1066 . … Co. v. Forbess, Co. Treas., 111 Okla. 48 , 237 P. 596 ; Going, Co. Treas., v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co, 106 Okla. 258 , 234 P. 346 ; C. D. Coggeshall & Co. v. Smiley, Co.

Great Central Ins. Co. v. Birdwell

273 P.2d 764 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 29, 1954

Board on February 17, 1954.” … JOHNSON, V. C. J., and DAVISON and BLACKBIRD, JJ., dissent.