Case law

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.

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 .)

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.

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.

HARRISON v. OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM

477 P.3d 383 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 2020

OSCN Found Document:HARRISON v. OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM HARRISON v. … RANDY HARRISON, Petitioner/Appellant, v. THE OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM and THE OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT BOARD of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents/Appellees.

Davon Drilling Company v. Ginder

467 P.2d 470 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 24, 1970

Rich v. *473 Doneghey, 71 Okl. 204 , 177 P. 86 , 3 A.L.R. 352 ; Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Donelson, 189 Okl. 273 , 116 P.2d 721 . … Bates v. Utech, Okl., 441 P.2d 952 .

Wilhite v. Cruce

70 Okla. 70 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 30, 1918

Lim. § 356; Lent v. Tillson, 72 Cal. 404 , 14 Pac. 71 . … Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518 , 4 L. Ed. 629 . It has been defined as: “Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.” 2 Kent Comm. 10: San Jose Ranch Co. v.

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.

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.

Edwards v. Boyle

37 Okla. 639 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1913

of county commissioners to have the. section lines opened and a petition to the quarantine board to have the cattle dipped. … Neither in circulating a petition to the quarantine board to have the cattle dipped, nor in circulating a petition to the board of county commissioners to have the section lines opened, was defendant doing anything unlawful

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.

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Durland

74 O.B.A.J. 980 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 18, 2003

Oklahoma Bar Association v. Brown, 863 P.2d 1108, 1111 (0k1a.1993). … Oklahoma Bar Association v. Brown, supra. 9 Additionally, in Oklahoma Bar Association v. Moore, 1987 OK 21 , 741 P.2d 445 , this Court was again faced with an attorney who falsified documents.

STATE EX REL. BD. OF REG., ETC. v. Engineered Coatings, Inc.

542 P.2d 508 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 4, 1975

STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS, Appellant, v. ENGINEERED COATINGS, INC., a corporation, Appellee. No. 46834. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. November 4, 1975. … State v. Board of Education of Independent School District No 74 of Muskogee County, 206 Okl. 699 , 246 P.2d 368 (1952); Swatek Construction Company v. Williams, 177 Okl. 305 , 58 P.2d 585 (1935); Good v.

Deep Rock Oil Corporation v. State

167 Okla. 324 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1934

Brown, tax ferret, before the county treasurer of Payne county, and a decision of the county treasurer ordering the assessment against plaintiff in error of certain omitted property was appealed to the county court of Payne … That since said date said cause has been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and on tha 4th day of December, 1933, an opinion was rendered in said cause, to wit: Johnson Oil Refining Company v.

Reed v. Long Bell Lumber Co.

316 P.2d 182 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 1, 1957

See Lowden v. Friddle, 189 Okl. 415 , 117 P.2d 533 . In Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. … This court in Gypsy Oil Co. v.

Protest of St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co.

143 Okla. 145 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 13, 1930

Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. E. D. … This court, in Dickinson v.

Hamilton v. Oklahoma City

527 P.2d 14 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 17, 1974

Board of Commissioners v. Beaty, 67 Okl. 281 , 171 P. 34 (1918). The test for determining whether population is a reasonable basis for classification has been consistently stated by this Court as set forth in Key v. … Bell v. Crum, 188 Okl. 67 , 106 P.2d 518 (1940); Lowden v. Okla. Co. Excise Board, 186 Okl. 706 , 100 P.2d 448 (1940). *17 A classification scheme very similar to the Act in question was considered in Lowden v. Okla.