Case law

Taylor v. Starr

109 Okla. 135 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 24, 1924

In Young v. … Citing Bibb v. Allen, 149 U. S. 481 , 37 L. Ed. 819 , and Clews v. Jamieson, 182 U. S. 461 , 45 L. Ed. 1183 .” In Gettys v.

Kirk v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS, MUSKOGEE CTY.

595 P.2d 1334 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 5, 1979

The case of Board of Co. Com'rs of Creek County v. … Pyeatte v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, 102 F.

Borin v. City of Erick

190 Okla. 519 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 14, 1942

Johnson v. Town Board of Trustees of Arnett, 139 Okla. 167 , 281 P. 777 . The petition does not indicate in any way that the action was barred. … J., CORN, V. C. J., and HURST and ARNOLD, JJ., dissent.

Ledegar v. Bockoven

77 Okla. 58 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 2, 1919

of county commissioners for its approval of said sale and for an order directing that deed for said property be executed by the chairman of' said board. … As to the power of the one having the authority to sell property for the payment of delinquent taxes, in Wells v. Austin, 59 Yt. 157, it is stated: “The collector adjourned his sale from *62 time to time.

First Nat. Bank of Allen v. Daugherty

122 Okla. 47 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 9, 1926

Silverton Mining Co. v. Houghwout, supra; Kleinschmidt v. American Mining: Co. (Mont.) 139 Pac. 785 . In Ellis et al. v. … Bank v. Elliott, 55 Iowa, 104 , 7 N. W. 470 . 39 Am. Rep. 167 . In Kilpatrick v.

Farmer v. City of Sapulpa

645 P.2d 518 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 27, 1982

As this Court observed in Hinz v. … Fretz v.

Griffin v. Culp

68 Okla. 310 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 13, 1918

The kinds of fraud which will vitiate a judgment in an independent action are pointed out in United States v. Throckmorton, 93 U. S. 61 , L. Ed. 93, which is quoted from with approval in Brown v. Trent, supra. … It was also pointed out in Brown v.

TULSA STOCKYARDS, INC. v. CLARK

2014 OK 14 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 2014

Co. v. … STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Discussed 1996 OK 61 , 918 P.2d 51 , 67 OBJ 1680, Keating v. Johnson Discussed 2007 OK 73 , 170 P.3d 1024 , STATE ex rel. WRIGHT v.

In Re School District No. 62

180 Okla. 297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1937

Board of Commissioners of Lincoln County, 9 S. D. 291, 68 N. W. 746 ; Appeal of Common School Districts Nos. 16, 45, and 94, Dakota County, 158 Minn. 317 , 197 N. W. 742 ; Consolidated School District No. 2 v. … See Sorknes v. Board of County Commissioners (Minn.) 154 N. W. 669 .

Dickinson v. Stewart

70 Okla. 271 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 23, 1918

Co. v. … Co. v.

City of Collinsville v. Ward

64 Okla. 30 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1917

Lackey v. State. 29 Okla. 255 , 116 Pac. 913 ; State v. Linn, 49 Okla. 526 , 153 Pac. 826 . Following the rule announced in Kansas City v. … Cr. 662 , 112 Pac. 951 ; State v. Linn, supra. In Lackey v.

Roberson v. Hubler

11 Okla. 297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 5, 1901

The board of county commissioners canvassed the returns, and declared Hubler elected by 43 votes, and issued to him a certificate of election. At the proper time he qualified and went into possession of the office.. … The case of Epley, et al. v. Charles Loran Moore, decided at the present term of this court, is decisive of this question.

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Cimarron Tp.

68 Okla. 7 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 11, 1917

The bond is filed as an exhibit to the petition, and reads: “The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Canadian County Board of County Commissioners, Geo. D. … (Mass.) 302; Caskie v. Harrison, 76 Va. 85 . Blankenship et al. v. Ely, 98 Va. 359 , 36 S.

Sartin v. Moran-Buckner Co.

189 Okla. 178 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 21, 1939

As pointed out in United States Casualty Company v. Steiger, 179 Okla. 407 , 66 P. 2d 55 ; Van Orman v. Robinson, 150 Okla. 156 , 300 P. 412 ; Rialto Lead & Zinc Co. v. … three months after court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, since board was not ‘court’ within meaning of Constitution.”

Jones v. Bob Cason Motor Co.

191 Okla. 332 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 6, 1942

Liberty National Bank, 180 Okla. 44 , 67 P. 2d 790 ; Smith v. Graham Brown Shoe Co., 179 Okla. 559 , 67 P. 2d 448 ; Smith v. Aronoff, 179 Okla. 560 , 67 P. 2d 447 . The appeal is dismissed. … J., and CORN, V. C. J., absent.

Coffe & Carkener v. Wilhite

56 Okla. 394 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 15, 1916

In Flagg v. Baldwin, 38 N. J. Eq. 219, 48 Am. … Mumford v. Canty, supra [ 50 Ill. 370 , 99 Am. Dec. 525 ] ; Story, Confl. sec. 327; Faulkner v. Hyman, 142 Mass. 53 ( 6 N. E. 846 ) ; Hill v. Spear, 50 N. H. 253, 9 Am. Rep. 205 ; Fisher v. Lord, 63 N.

In re the Assessment of Real Property within Carter County

363 P.2d 254 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 13, 1961

In this appeal, plaintiff in error, or appellant, seeks reversal of the same State Board of Equalization’s order, appealed from in Board of County Com’rs of Kay County, Okl. v. … State Board of Equalization, Okl., 363 P.2d 257 .

In re Oklahoma Press Pub. Co.'s Taxes

200 Okla. 291 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 23, 1948

Hearing was had before the board of equalization on May 2, 1946, resulting in an order as shown by the minutes of the board, as follows: “Motion by J. T. … In Grubb v. Johnson Oil Refg.

Blue Grass Oil Co. v. Central Torpedo Co.

82 Okla. 58 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 19, 1921

Alva Roller Mills v. Simmons, 74 Oklahoma, 185 Pac. 76 ; Hutchings v. Cobble, 30 Okla. 158 , 120 Pac. 1013 ; Murphy v. Hood, 12 Okla. 593 , 73 Pac. 261 . Section 5044, Rev. … Assn. v. Cummins, 78 Okla. 265 , 188 Pac. 1069 ; Hines v. Olsen, 78 Okla. 259 , 185 Pac. 436 ; Stone v. Stone, 66 Oklahoma, 168 Pac. 423 . For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Wyatt-Doyle & Butler Engineers, Inc. v. City of Eufaula

71 O.B.A.J. 2580 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 3, 2000

Del City v. FOP, Lodge No. 114, 1993 OK 169, ¶ 5 , 869 P.2d 309 . … Wyatt-Doyle cites City of Tulsa v. Langley, 1946 OK 123, ¶ 52 , 168 P.2d 116, 123 , and Board of County Com'rs of Tulsa County v.