Case law

Foster v. Robbins

155 Okla. 171 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 23, 1932

Singer v. Ooley, 112 Okla. 28 , 239 P. 594 . … .” *173 To the same effect is Piersol v. State ex rel. County Attorney, 122 Okla. 124 , 254 P. 104 ; Timberlake v. Case, 122 Okla. 275 , 254 P. 724 ; Timberlake v. Norris, 129 Okla. 113 , 263 P. 649 .

McCarter v. State Ex Rel. Pitman, Co.

82 Okla. 78 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 26, 1921

V. Howell, as defendants. … Board of Com’rs of Creek County v. Alexander, 58 Okla. 128 , 159 Pac. 311 ; Hudson v. County Treasurer, Osage County, 75 Okla. 260 , 183 Pac. 507 , In the case of Soliss v.

MUSKOGEE FAIR HAVEN MANOR v. Scott

957 P.2d 107 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 31, 1998

Edwards v. Board of Com'rs, 169 Okla. 87 , 36 P.2d 6 (1934) (the Court's syllabus). Finally, a judge's powers in equity are not invocable when clear and adequate statutory remedies are available. Whig Syndicate, Inc. v. … Tway, Inc. v.

Oklahoma City v. Brient

189 Okla. 163 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 17, 1941

Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 182 Okla. 91 , 76 P. 2d 389 ; Board of County Commissioners v. Giddings, 159 Okla. 103 , 14 P. 2d 418 ; Walker-Taylor Co. v. … Cooper v. King, 171 Okla. 121 , 42 P. 2d 249 .

Frank v. Allstate Insurance Co.

727 P.2d 577 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 31, 1986

In Brown v. United States Auto. … The Court also cited Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Company, 662 P.2d 681 (Okla.1983); Lake v. Wright, 657 P.2d 643 (Okla.1982); Chambers v. Walker, 653 P.2d 931 (Okla.1982); Porter v.

Holland Hall School v. Glass

497 P.2d 763 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 23, 1972

The cited cases are Red v. Johnson, 53 Tex. 284 , and Edmonds v. … Board of Equalization, 179 Neb. 326 , 138 N.W.2d 455 , involving the residence of the principal of a rural parochial boarding school. The Kansas Supreme Court held in Kansas Wesleyan University v.

Incorporated Town of Jenks v. Pratt

137 Okla. 156 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 29, 1929

Board of County Com’rs of Craig County, 67 Okla. 141 , 169 Pac. 1101 , and Hume v. Wyand, 68 Okla. 261 , 173 Pac. 813 . … City of Geary, 59 Okla. 22 , 157 Pac. 720 ; Board of County Com’rs of McCurtain County v. Western Bank & Office Supply Co , 122 Okla. 244 , 254 Pac. 741 .

Independent School District No. 1-2 of Stephens County v. Independent School District No. 1-23 of Jefferson County

553 P.2d 150 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 27, 1976

Board of Ed. of Ind. Sch. D. No. 48, Hughes Cty. v. Rives, Okl., 531 P.2d 335 . … Board of Ed. of Ind. Sch. D. No. 48, Hughes Cty. v. Rives, supra.

FARRIS v. MASQUELIER

2022 OK 91 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 15, 2022

Sellars v. … See also Anderson v.

In Re Bridge Bonds, Ratliff Tp., Johnston County

35 Okla. 192 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 3, 1912

Laws 1909, authorize the board of trustees of any township, with the approval of the board of county commissioners, to construct bridges across streams .that run through any township. … As said by the court in Wormley et al. v. Board of Supervisors, 108 Iowa, 232 , 78 N.

Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Ass'n v. Midget

505 P.2d 175 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 30, 1972

See Robinson v. … DAVISON, V. C. J., and WILLIAMS, IRWIN, LAVENDER, BARNES and SIMMS, JJ., concur.

C & C Tile Co. v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 7 of Tulsa Cty.

503 P.2d 554 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 24, 1972

D’Yarmett v. School Dist. No. 27, Canadian County, 72 Okl. 124 , 179 P. 20 (1919). Board of Ed. of Town of Carney v. News Dispatch Printing & Audit Co., 117 Okl. 226 , 245 P. 884 (1926). … Tulsa Exposition and Fair Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners, 468 P.2d 501, 508 (Okl.1970).

Bird v. Willis

67 O.B.A.J. 3128 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 15, 1996

This writ can be issued against a state board or agency. See, e.g., Maule v. Independent School District No. 9, 714 P.2d 198 (Okla.1985); Way v. Grand Lake Ass’n Inc., 635 P.2d 1010 (Okla.1981); Little v. … Allen v. Board of Com’rs of Logan County, 131 Okla. 41 , 267 P. 860 (1928). It can also be used to review the act of a state or local official in denying a permit. Mustang Fuel Corp. v.

Ex Parte Tennyson

184 Okla. 50 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 22, 1938

The order of commitment grew out of an action in the aforesaid court wherein the State Board of Barber Examiners sought to enjoin petitioner from violating a purported order of said board establishing minimum prices for barber … Herrin v. Arnold, 183 Okla. 392 , 82 P.2d 977 .

Robinson v. First Nat. Bank of Ardmore

107 Okla. 160 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 9, 1924

The Bank Commissioner and the First National Bank pressed Eugene V. … We are referred to the decisions of this court in Lovett v. Lankford, 47 Okla. 12 , 145 Pac. 767 , and State ex rel. v. Norman, 86 Okla. 36 , 206 Pac. 522 .

Watkinson v. Adams

187 Okla. 432 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 31, 1939

In Stevirmac Oil & Gas Co. v. … This court, in Colcord v.

Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.

833 P.2d 1218 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 22, 1992

See, e.g., Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or. 597 , 588 P.2d 1087 (1978). … Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Okl. 695 P.2d 498, 504 (1985); Neumann v. Tax Com'n., Okl., 596 P.2d 530, 532 (1979); Wilson v. Foster, Okl., 595 P.2d 1329, 1333 (1979). 62 .

In Re Oklahoma Department of Transportation for Approval of Not to Exceed $100 Million Oklahoma Department of Transportation Grant Anticipation Notes, Series 2002

64 P.3d 546 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 11, 2002

York v. … See Tulsa Exposition & Fair Corp. v. Board of Co. Comm’rs of Tulsa Co., 1970 OK 67 , 468 P.2d 501, 507 .

Fent v. State ex rel. Office of State Finance

184 P.3d 467 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 22, 2008

It sets forth the formula for the State Board of Equalization to estimate revenues for the next ensuing fiscal year, limits appropriations to the State Board's itemized estimate of revenues, and declares all appropriations … V.

Raulerson v. State Industrial Comm. of Oklahoma

76 Okla. 8 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 16, 1919

In Board of Commissioners v. … This is a question of fact, and the law as laid down in Board of Commissioners v. Barr, supra, is- controlling. Therefore, this suit is hereby dismissed. . OWEN, .C.