Case law

Murray v. Bristow

73 Okla. 115 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 17, 1918

Wagner v. Sattley Mfg. Co., 23 Okla. 52 , 99 Pac. 643 ; Finch v. Brown, 27 Okla. 217 , 111 Pac. 391 ; Tootle v. Floyd, 28 Okla. 308 , 114 Pac. 259 ; Bettis v. Cargile, 34 Okla. 319 , 126 Pac. 222 ; Baldwin Lumber Co. v. … Sanders, 39 Okla. 142 , 134 Pac. 387 ; Magee v. Litchfield, 50 Okla. 360 . 151 Pac. 575 ; Powell v. First State Bank, 56 Okla. 44 , 155 Pac. 500 ; Keet & Roundtree D. G. Co. v.

Groves Nat. Bank v. Baker

47 Okla. 368 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 4, 1915

In Scott v. Brown, 40 Okla. 184 , 137 Pac. 113 , Mr.

Ellis v. Gurich

73 P.3d 860 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 6, 2003

Higginbotham v. Jackson, 1994 OK 8 , ¶0, 869 P.2d 319 ; Nitzel v. Jackson, 1994 OK 49 . ¶ 1, 879 P.2d 1222, 1223 ; see also Avery v. … Brown v. Blevins, 1998 OK 104 , 968 P.2d 1218 . See also Bain v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 331 , 714 P.2d 824, 828 (Ariz.1986 WATT, C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, KAUGER, SUMMERS, BOUDREAU, WINCHESTER, JJ. Concur.

In Re Initiative Petition No. 4, Etc.

165 Okla. 8 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 20, 1933

of the board, and the city clerk, styled "defendants in error". … J., CULLISON, V. C. J., and ANDREWS, McNEILL, OSBORN, BAYLESS, BUSBY, and WELCH, JJ., concur.

Western Silo Co. v. Pruitt

94 Okla. 154 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 11, 1923

Brown v. Davidson, 42 Okla. 598 , 142 Pac. 387 ; Brown v. Baird, 5 Okla. 133 , 48 Pac. 180 ; 24 R. C. L. 171, as additional authorities in support of this contention. … Co. v. Int.

Dancy v. Owens

126 Okla. 37 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 19, 1927

Attorney General v. … Gen. v.

Kirk Oil Co. v. Bristow

154 Okla. 188 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 19, 1932

E. 63 ; Morrison v. Lawrence, 98 Mass. 219 ; Andrews v. BoylstOn, 110 Mass. 214 ; Judd v. Thompson, 125 Mass. 553 ; Higgins v. Reed, 8 Iowa, 298 ; Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 189 ; 59 P. 1007 . … This court in McCulloch v.

Pimm v. Waldron

118 Okla. 5 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 16, 1926

This section of the statute was adopted from the state of Kansas, and in Continental Insurance Co. v. … 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.

Spencer v. Lambert

68 Okla. 291 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 11, 1918

In Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Regier, 51 Neb. 402 , 70 N. … Kennedy v. Goodman, 39 Okla. 470 , 185 Pac. 936 .

Souligny v. Ponca City

272 P.2d 413 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 25, 1954

In Board of Com’rs of El Paso County v. … Several cases, among them, Board of Com’rs of El Paso County v. City of Colorado Springs, supra, are cited to the effect that the levy and collection of street improvement assessments are of local concern.

State Ex Rel. Crane Co. v. Goerke

191 Okla. 1 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 16, 1942

The relator presents the case on appeal asserting error in the ruling of the trial court. *2 In support of the judgment of the trial court, the defendants rely upon Board of Education of City of Duncan v. … Johnston, 189 Okla. 172 , 115 P. 2d 132 , and Carter v. Collins, 174 Okla. 4 , 50 P. 2d 203 . Board of Education of City of Duncan v.

Alva State Bank v. Renfrew

10 Okla. 26 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 5, 1900

It was further alleged in the petition that thereafter the Territorial board of equalization, without any notice or knowledge, raised the valuation oí all the property of Woods county forty per cent. … (Shawnee Hardware Company v. Durham, Treasurer, decided at this term of court), and authorities there cited.

Harris v. Boggess

113 Okla. 60 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1925

This doctrine is announced in McKee v. Adair County Election Board, 36 Okla. 258 , 128 Pac. 294 . … In the ease of Pehr v.

Rackley v. City of Purcell

40 Okla. 186 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 9, 1913

Coggeshall v. Connor, 31 Okla. *188 113, 120 Pac. 559 , 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 81, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 577; Board of County Commissioners of Washita County v. Brett, 32 Okla. 853 , 124 Pac. 57 ; State v. … Hooker, 26 Okla. 467 , 109 Pac. 527 ; Board of County Commissioners v. Twyford, ante, 134 Pac. 968 .

Estate of Johnson v. Oklahoma Children's Memorial Hospital

63 O.B.A.J. 1837 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 23, 1992

See McGaha v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 691 P.2d 895, 896 (Okla.1984). Johnson argues that the operation of the hospital is a proprietary function under Hershel . … In McGaha v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 691 P.2d 895 (Okla.1984), this Court recognized that “[t]radi-tionally, education has been held to be a governmental function.”

Sand Springs Home v. Perin Engineering Co.

173 Okla. 142 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1935

In Shuler v. … This was also the holding of this court in McDonald, Adm’r, v. Strawn, 78 Okla. 271 , 190 P. 558 ; Reed v. Robinson, 83 Okla. 68 , 200 P. 773 ; Bourland v.

Lederman v. Bodovitz

198 Okla. 276 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 4, 1947

Oklahoma City, 24 Okla. 579 , 104 P. 902 ; Boone v. Porter, 45 Okla. 615 , 146 P. 584 ; Zimmerman v. Board of Co. Com’rs, 65 Okla. 10 , 162 P. 489 ; Clark v. Board of Co. … Com’rs, 143 Okla. 18 , 285 P. 127 ; and Board of Co. Com’rs v. Oklahoma Tax Com., 185 Okla. 625 , 95 P. 2d 605 .

Allen v. Lynn Hickey Dodge, Inc.

39 P.3d 781 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 27, 2001

Daugherty v. Farmers Coop. Ass'n, 1984 OK 72, ¶ 5 , 689 P.2d 947, 949 ; Crockett v. McKenzie, 1994 OK 3, ¶ 3 , 867 P.2d 463, 464 . … Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32 , ¶ 5 n. 1, 935 P.2d 319 , 321 n. 1; Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79, ¶ 22, n. 30 , 989 P.2d 448 , 456 n. 30.

Hunter v. Quick

183 Okla. 19 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 17, 1938

S. 1931, provides that the Bank Commissioner and the members of the Banking Board shall be subject to removal by the Governor “for cause.” In Bynum v. … In Smith v.

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Jennings

175 Okla. 524 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 21, 1936

City of Muskogee v. Hancock, 58 Okla. 1 , 158 P. 622 ; City of Tulsa v. Hindman, 128 Okla. 169 , 201 P. 910 ; Page v. Oklahoma City, 129 Okla. 28 , 263 P. 448 ; State Highway Commission v. … But it does not necessarily follow that the judgment in this case must be reversed because the judge possibly erroneously and without legislative authority appointed a board of commissioners and the board made its report,