Case law

Jordan v. Bodine

88 Okla. 275 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 27, 1923

, and that said board of education now intends to issue, certify, sell, and dispose of said bonds. … JOHNSON, V. C. J., and KENNAMER, NICHOLSON, COCHRAN, and BRANSON, JJ., concur.

Checotah Hardware Co. v. Hensley

42 Okla. 260 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 9, 1914

Rep. 867 ; Hodges' Adm'x x v. South Fork, etc., Co. (Ky.) 50 S. W. 969 ; Higgins v. Lansingh, 154 Ill. 301 , 40 N. E. 362 ; Sage v. Culver, 147 N. Y. 241 , 41 N. E. 513 ; Pond v. Vermont Valley R. … But, while the petition shows that the two individual defendants are directors and dominate the board, it is not made clearly to appear by sufficient averments that a demand on the board of directors to prosecute the rights

Incorporated Town of Ryan v. Town of Waurika

29 Okla. 655 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 14, 1911

Nichols v. Board of County Canvassers, 129 N. Y. 395 , 29 N. E. 327 , 14 L. R. A. 624. See, also, the following authorities: Wright v. State Board of Canvassers, 76 S. Car. 574, 57 S. E. 536 ; Major v. … In Londoner v.

City of Oklahoma City v. Iams

145 Okla. 272 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 21, 1930

Johnson v. Board of Com’rs of Logan County, 125 Okla. 96 , 256 Pac. 900 ; Piersol v. State, 122 Okla. 124 , 254 Pac. 104 ; Duncan v. Duncan, 129 Okla. 126 , 263 Pac. 1083 ; Dorchester v. … In the case of Johnson v.

LERITZ v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.

385 P.3d 991 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 2016

Brown v. Nicholson , 1997 OK 32 , ¶ 5 n.1, 935 P.2d 319 , 321 n.1. It is reviewable by a de novo standard. Kluver v. Weatherford Hosp. Auth. , 1993 OK 85, ¶ 14 , 859 P.2d 1081, 1084 . … COOK'S OILFIELD SERVICES Discussed Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases Cite Name Level 1993 OK 85 , 859 P.2d 1081 , 64 OBJ 2009, Kluver v. Weatherford Hosp. Authority Discussed 1997 OK 32 , 935 P.2d 319 , 68 OBJ 992, Brown v.

In re Special Election in Stock Dist. No. 2

204 Okla. 334 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 3, 1951

On May 5, 1950, the board of county commissioners of Delaware county entered an order canvassing the results of a stock law election held in stock district No. 2, Delaware county, on April 29, 1950, and approving the election … While it is true, as stated in the authorities cited by appellants, such as In re Bucher, County Attorney, 162 Okla. 168 , 20 P. 2d 150 ; Stuart v.

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

59 Okla. 95 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 6, 1916

. * * *” To the same effect are Bentz v. Eubanks, 32 Kan. 321 , 4 Pac. 269 ; Dickerson v. Burlington & Mo. R. Ry. Co., 43 Kan. 702 , 23 Pac. 936 ; Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476 , 25 L. Ed. 237 ; So. Pac. Co. v. … Co. v. Pinkney, 149 U. S. 194 , 13 Sup. Ct. 859, 37 L. Ed. 699 ; G., H. & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Gonzales, 151 U. S. 496 , 14 Sup. Ct 401, 38 L. Ed. 248 ; Secrest v. Arnett, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 366; Mullen v. N. & N. C.

Clark v. Seay

140 Okla. 198 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 8, 1929

Settles, 46 Okla. 801 , 149 Pac. 890 ; Murphy v. W. & W. Livestock Co., 26 Wyo. 455 , 189 Pac. 857 ; Ford v. Brown et al., 120 Cal. 551 , 52 Pac. 817 ; Seattle Land Co. v. Day, 2 Wash. 451 , 27 Pac. 74 ; Wolverton v. … In Wolverton v.

Federal Land Bank of Wichita v. Denson

172 Okla. 225 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 9, 1935

In Hume v. Indiana Nat. Life Ins. Co. (Ark.) 245 S. … Land & Loan Co. v.

City of Pawhuska v. Crutchfield

155 Okla. 222 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 2, 1932

See City of Pawhuska v. Crutchfield, 147 Okla. 4 , 293 P. 1095 . The facts are stated in that opinion, and we do not deem it necessary to here restate them. W. E. … Co. v. Criner, 41 Okla. 256 , 137 P. 705 ; Oklahoma Hospital v. Brown, 87 Okla. 46 , 208 P. 785 ; Jones v. Sechten, 131 Okla. 155 , 268 P. 201 .

Cherokee Public Service Co. v. Harry Cragin Lbr. Co.

174 Okla. 67 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 1, 1935

The service company next contends that a resolution of the board of directors prevented debts in excess of $500 being incurred by its officers or agents without the approval of the board. … Co. v. Bishop Mfg. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 235 S. W. 850 ; Barber v. Stromberg-Carlson Telephone Mfg. Co., 81 Neb. 517 , 116 N. W. 157 ; Edwards v. Plains Light & Water Co., 49 Mont. 535 , 143 P. 962 . See Barnes et al. v.

Stiles, Treasurer v. City of Guthrie

3 Okla. 26 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 27, 1895

(Winfield Town Company v. Maris, 11 Kan. 128 ; McKee v. Eaton, 26 Kan. 226 ; White v. Scott, 26 Kan. 476 ; Hurd v. Simpson, 47 Kan. 372 .) … [Parker v. Win- *36 sor, 5 Kan. 362 ; Gilmore v. Norton, 10 Kan. 491 ; Hudson v. Commissioners, 12 Kan. 140 ; Center Township v. Hunt, 16 Kan. 430 .)

Turner and Kirkwood v. City of Guthrie

13 Okla. 26 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1903

In the case of Board of Commissioners of Montgomery County v. Fullen et al, 12 N. … In Little v. The Board of County Commissioners of Hamilton County, 7 Ind.

Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Adams

27 Okla. 496 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 16, 1910

Speaking of similar conditions, the court in Brown v. … Co. v. Randolph, supra, and Collins v. Ins.

McCartney v. Turpen

685 P.2d 400 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 13, 1984

In Arthur v. … amend the ballot title before the court, or accept the substitute suggested, or may draft a new one which will conform to this chapter." .In Re Initiative Petition No. 315, Etc., 649 P.2d 545, 553 (Okla.1982); Lipscomb v.

City of Holdenville v. Lawson

40 Okla. 38 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 27, 1913

Board of County Commissioners of Fountain County, 46 Ind. 380 ; Board of County Commissioners of Cass County v. Ross et al., 6 Ind. 404 ; Smith v. Mayor and Council of Sacramento City et al., 13 Cal. 531 ; Hornblower v. … Duden, 35 Cal. 664 ; Huffman v. Board of County Commissioners of Greenwood County, 23 Kan. 281 ; Roper v. Tozan of Laurinburg (N. C.) Am. & Eng. Corporation Cases, vol. 7, p. 130.

Meyer v. White

27 Okla. 400 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 16, 1910

Co. v. Beecher, 24 Kan. 230 . … Also, Woodward v. Brown, 13 Pet. 1 . As there was no evidence reasonably tending to prove that plaintiff had abandoned his lease, the finding of the jury that he had not is supported by'the evidence.

Callison v. Callison

687 P.2d 106 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 13, 1984

Brown, 462 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 2199 , 76 L.Ed.2d 372 (1983). . In Mills v. … See Mills v. Habluetzel, note 10. . See Terasaki, "Resolution By HLA Testing Of 1000 Paternity Cases Not Resolved By ABO Testing," 16 J. Fam. L. 543 (1977-1978). See also Pickett v. Brown, supra, note 9. In Little v.

Davis v. Gray

39 Okla. 386 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 6, 1913

In Ward v. … See, also, Stanard v. Sampson et ux., 23 Okla. 13 , 99 Pac. 796 ; Brown et al. v. First Nat.

Veiser v. Armstrong

688 P.2d 796 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 18, 1984

Birch, 169 Okl. 237 , 36 P.2d 907, 914 [1934]; Electrical Research Products v. Haniotis Bros., 170 Okl. 144 , 39 P.2d 42, 44 [1935]; Union Oil Co. of California v. Brown, Okl., 641 P.2d 1106, 1108 [1982]. 19 . … Graham, supra note 12; Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. Seminole County Excise Board, supra note 10. 24 . Bruce v. Miller, supra note 11 at 511-512.