Case law

Wallace v. L. D. Clark & Son

74 Okla. 208 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 21, 1918

In support of the doctrine announced by the defendant in error, the following authorities are cited: Brown v. Baird, 5 Okla. 133 , 48 Pac. 180 ; Brown v. Davidson, 42 Okla. 598 , 142 Pac. 387 ; Talley v. … Co. v. Brown et al., 28 Okla. 436 , 114 Pac. 1102 , 34 L. R. A. (N.

City of Ada v. Spencer

121 Okla. 217 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1926

Greening, who was general liqui-r dating agent for said banking board, wherein and whereby it was agreed by and between said banking board and said Greening that said Greening should act for said board in reducing to cash … Freeling et al. v.

Conway v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.

669 P.2d 766 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 14, 1983

In Reirdon v. … I-95 of Grant City v.

SPENCER v. WYRICK

2017 OK 19 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 7, 2017

effect, subject to the power of the Legislature to change or abolish said Courts, Boards, Agencies, or Commissions. … BOARD OF REGENTS v. McCLOSKEY BROTHERS, INC. Discussed 2011 OK 10, 257 P.3d 984, FENT v. HENRY Discussed 2011 OK 57, 270 P.3d 113, TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY v.

Ft. Smith W. R. Co. v. Chandler Cotton Oil Co.

25 Okla. 82 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 9, 1909

R. 23; Ponca City Milling Company v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, 12 Interst. Com. R. 26. … But, conceding the rule adopted by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma in the case of Smith v.

Overstreet v. Keith

185 Okla. 198 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 2, 1939

Our present interpretation of “the commencement of proceedings” is supported by what was said in Green v. … WELCH, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co.

49 Okla. 398 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 23, 1915

Ed. 999 ; Hauselt v. Harrison, 105 U. S. 401 , 26 L. Ed. 1075 ; Walker v. Brown, 165 U. S. 654 , 17 Sup. Ct. 453, 41 L. Ed. 865 , and note; Edwards v. Scruggs, 155 Ala. 568 , 46 South. 850 ; Perry v. … Board of Missions, 102 N. Y. 99 , 6 N. E. 116 ; Hutzler Bros. v. Phillips, 26 S. C. 136, 1 ■ S. E. 502, 4 Am. St. Rep. 687 , and note; Richardson v. Hamlett, 33 Ark. 237 ; Martin v. Nixon, 92 Mo. 26 , 4 S.

State Ex Rel. Twist v. Bailey

295 P.2d 763 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 27, 1956

V. Caffey, J. W. … Sweeney v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Corp., supra; State ex rel. Sweeney v. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, 179 Okl. 329 , 66 P.2d 926 ; State ex rel. Foster v. Oklahoma City, 193 Okl. 177 , 141 P.2d 994 .

McKee v. McKee

172 Okla. 35 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 23, 1935

In the case of Overton v. … Brown v. Brown, 104 Okla. 206 , 230 P. 853 ; Farneman v. Farneman, 46 Ind. App. 453 , 90 N. E. 775 , 91 N. E. 968 ; Murray v. Postal T. & C. Co., 210 Mass. 188 , 96 N. E. 316 , Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1183.

Connor v. Tailor & Leaverette

33 Okla. 733 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 7, 1912

It is insisted by plaintiff in error that the execution was not issued upon a final judgment, citing Houston v. Brown, 5 Ind. T. 361 , 82 S. W. 775 , and Case v. Ingle, 2 Ind. T. 309 , 51 S. W. 958 . … . * * * ” In the opinion it is said: “In the case of Kountz v. S. Brown et al., 16 B. Mon. [Ky.] 585, suit was brought against the owners of a steamboat for damage done to a wharf boat.

Garner v. Lamm

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

In the ease 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 .

Chetopa Motor Co. v. Douglas

132 Okla. 92 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 31, 1928

In the case of Federal National Bank v. … In the case of McIver v.

In Re Stolper

185 Okla. 459 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 26, 1939

The Board of Governors of the State Bar have recommended that J. H. Stolper be disbarred. … J., WELCH, V. O. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, CORN, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. GIBSON and DANNER, JJ., absent.

Hayes v. Hoffsommer

120 Okla. 157 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 23, 1926

This is an action brought by certain taxpayers and legal voters ’ of school district No. 48, in Garfield county, against the county superintendent of public instruction and the board of education of the independent school … We think the facts here, and the principles involved, were the same as in the' case of Consolidated School District No. 72 v. Board of Education of City of Wilson et al., 113 Okla. 217 , 242 Pac. 173 .

A M Construction Company, Inc. v. Lansden

547 P.2d 961 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 2, 1976

Wirtz and Douglas Wirtz; and Tract V — Petitioner, A & M Construction Company, Inc. The bids for these three tracts were approved and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. … Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 14 ECM, less the West 33 ft. of said tract, Surface only; TRACT IV — SW-4 of the SE-4 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 14 ECM, less the East 33 ft. of said tract, Surface only; TRACT V

EZZELL v. LACK

480 P.3d 906 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 26, 2021

The setting of a special municipal election, which must be conducted by the county election board under the oversight of the State Election Board, is not a matter of local concern. … It is clear that, as the Secretary of the Oklahoma County Election Board testified at length, the election board requires a minimum of 60 days to prepare adequately for an election.

Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope

61 O.B.A.J. 3191 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 27, 1990

In Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams 15 the Court continued refining Mullane. There, mortgagees received notice of a tax sale by publication alone. … Department of Highways v. Brown 24 finally led to legislative amendments of the pertinent condemnation statutes.

First National Bank of Washington v. Haines

76 Okla. 301 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 18, 1919

Smith et al. v. La Fayette & Bro., 29 Okla. 671 , 119 Pac. 979 ; First Nat. Bank of Bristow v. Rogers, 24 Okla. 357 , 103 Pac. 582 ; Hoblitt et al. v. … In Ferguson v. Twisdale et al. (N. C.) 49 S.

Bank of Indian Territory v. Eckles

19 Okla. 159 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 5, 1907

In Scott v. Tyler; 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 202, “incur” is held to mean “to become liable for.” In Flanagan v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. (Iowa) 50 N. W. 60 : “To become liable for.” In Beckman v. Van Dolsen, 24 N. Y. … In Deyo v. Stewart, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 101: “Brought on himself.” In Ashe v. Young, 68 Tex. 123 , 3 S. W. 454 : “Brought on, occasioned, or *164 caused.”

In Re Kimble

193 Okla. 51 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 14, 1943

It is disclosed that a copy of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Board of Bar Governors was mailed to respondent May 13, 1938, and a transcript of all proceedings before the Board of Governors … J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, HURST, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. BAYLESS and WELCH, JJ., dissent.