Case law

In Re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority

74 O.B.A.J. 1722 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 3, 2003

Juvenile Affairs $ 1,227,601.00 s. the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services $ 2,075,000.00 t. the Oklahoma Military Department $ 5,700,101.00 u. the Department of Public Safety $ 1,194,000.00 v. … M.Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, each and every agency, board, commission, department or other entity of state government as identified in paragraph 16 of subsection A of this section shall have

Allen, County Treas. v. Henshaw

197 Okla. 123 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 19, 1946

S. 1941 §§ 15.8, 353; Board of Commissioners of Comanche Co. v. Central Baptist Church, 136 Okla. 99 , 276 P. 726 ; In re Sinclair Prairie Oil Co., 175 Okla. 289 , 53 P. 2d 221 ; United States v. Alabama, 313 U. … Johnston v. Mohrabacker, 118 Okla. 244 , 247 P. 389 ; First National Bank v. Scott, 119 Okla. 106 , 249 P. 282 ; Board of County Commissioners v. State Board of Equalization, 155 Okla. 183 , 8 P. 2d 732 .

Southland Refining Co. v. State Industrial Com.

167 Okla. 3 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 12, 1933

Crown Drug Co. v. Hofstrom, 158 Okla. 27 , 12 P. (2d) 519 ; Drumright Feed Company v. Hunt, 90 Okla. 277 , 217 P. 491 . … In this connection we cite Mobley v.

HEATH v. GUARDIAN INTERLOCK NETWORK, INC.

2016 OK 18 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 23, 2016

Subsequently, Heath obtained a restricted license which permitted him to drive only vehicles equipped with a Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence (Board of Tests) approved ignition interlock device. ¶4 On December … Nevertheless, Guardian also contends that: 1) the Board of Tests, and the Tax Commission also interpret §6-212.3 as applying only to maintenance fees; and 2) public policy requires that statute to be read as applying only

Gordon v. Continental Ins. Co.

182 Okla. 240 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 25, 1938

But this court has taken a contrary view in Brown v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (1925.) 108 Okla. 90 , 234 P. 352 , and Insurance Co. of North America v. … Brown v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., supra, involved a cancellation clause, and upon close examination it appears that the clause in the policy was materially different from the clause in the standard form.

In Re Oklahoma Development Finance Authority

89 P.3d 1075 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 3, 2004

Brown v. City of Warr Acres, 1997 OK 117 , 946 P.2d 1140 , a qui tam action, we heard a challenge to the city's expenditure of public fund to induce a private land trust to lease land to a retailer. … FENT V.

Boardman v. Oklahoma City Housing Authority

445 P.2d 412 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 24, 1968

McCrady v. Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, Okl., 323 P.2d 356, 359 . In Isaacs v. … In Armstrong v. Sewer Improvement Dist.

Lindauer v. Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority

496 P.2d 1174 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 14, 1972

See McDonald v. Board of Election Comm’rs, 394 U.S. 802, 809 , 89 S. Ct. 1404 , 22 L.Ed.2d 739 (1969); Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 , 75 S.Ct. 98 , 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954). … Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 71-72 , 7 S.Ct. 350 , 30 L.Ed. 578 (1887); McDonald v. Board of Election Comm’ rs, supra.

Combs v. Johnson

92 Okla. 189 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 25, 1923

Marcy v. Board of Commissioners, supra; United States v. Shock, 187 Fed. Rep. 870.” Entertaining a like view of the proviso, we conclude that the land covered by the lease is still restricted land. … It is seen from the above quotation that the case of Marcy v. Board of County Commissioners, supra, and United States v. Shock, 187 Fed.

Oklahoma Public Employees Ass'n v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management

267 P.3d 838 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 2011

Hertz Corp., 1994 OK 120 , ¶ 6, 885 P.2d 1343 ; Oglesby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 1992 OK 61 , ¶ 8, 832 P.2d 834 . . Hill v. Board of Education, see note 15, infra; Haney v. … Chicago Tribune Co. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, see note 17, supra. . The Okla.

Edmondston v. Porter

65 Okla. 18 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 2, 1917

A meeting of the school board at Blackwell was had on that night, Mr. Tetrick and Edmondston appearing there with the letters, and Mrs. Porter appearing there at the request of the school board. … And again in Elliott v.

Democratic Party of Oklahoma v. Estep

652 P.2d 271 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 30, 1982

Application of State ex rel Dept, of Transportation, supra note 13 at 611; Oliver v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Okl., 359 P.2d 183, 187-189 [1961]; City of Sand Springs v. … Department of Public Welfare, supra note 23; Continental Oil Co. v. Oklahoma State Board of Equalization, supra note 23; Ludwig v. Yancey, Okl., 318 P.2d 450, 453 [1957]; American Home Products Corporation v.

Hampton v. Hampton

609 P.2d 772 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 1, 1980

That statement was approved in Seifried v. State ex rel. … As stated in numerous cases, one of which is an indirect contempt appeal, Brown v.

Severson v. Roberts, County Treas.

197 Okla. 121 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 1946

The defendants, the county treasurer and board of county commissioners, filed, a demurrer to the amended petition, which was overruled. … Bramble v. Caywood, 193 Okla. 668 , 146 P. 2d 587 ; Hight v. Collingsworth, 194 Okla. 507 , 153 P. 2d 96 ; Grisso v. Ellis, 194 Okla. 506 , 153 P. 2d 104 . 3.

Spraker v. Carroll

416 P.2d 946 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 19, 1966

City of Tulsa v. State Industrial Commission, Okl., 316 P.2d 612 ; Gooldy v. Lawson, 155 Okl. 259 , 9 P.2d 22 . … Cross v. Brown, Okl., 363 P.2d 935 ; Skelly Oil Co. v. Waters, Okl., 348 P.2d 320 ; Rider v. Bob Hiner Service Station, Okl., 321 P.2d 378 .

Taylor v. Scott

83 Okla. 30 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 10, 1921

Condit v. Condit, 66 Oklahoma, 168 Pac. 456 ; Bolling v. Campbell, 36 Okla. 671 , 128 Pac. 1091 ; Scott v. Brown, 40 Okla. 148 , 137 Pac. 113 ; Bruner v. Nordmeyer, 48 Okla. 415 , 150 Pac. 159 ; Jefferson v. … Condit v. Condit, supra, and other cases above cited.

State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. District Court of Nowata County

519 P.2d 513 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1974

State Board of Education v. District Court of Bryan County, Okl., 290 P.2d 413 . We agree with this line of argument. … In Kansas City v.

Price v. McDowell

52 Okla. 608 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 30, 1915

Browne on the Statute of Frauds (5th Ed.), section 441, says: “It seems to be’ well established that where a contract, affected by the statute, has been put in writing, and the plaintiff, in a case of subsequent oral variation … See Bonicamp v. Starbuck, 25 Okla. 483 , 106 Pac. 839 ; Baker v. Haswell & Taylor, 36 Okla. 429 , 128 Pac. 1086 ; 1 *611 Beach on the Modern Law of Contracts, section 579; Wood on Statute of Frauds, section 384.

Webb v. Maynard

907 P.2d 1055 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 7, 1995

Jones v. State, 682 P.2d 757 (Okla.Crim.App.1984); Galcatcher v. Page, 437 P.2d 284 (Okla.Crim.App.1968). … Gaines v. Maynard, 808 P.2d 672 (Okla.1991).

In Re Issuance of Bonds by City of Miami

43 Okla. 205 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1914

For the purpose of issuing bridge bonds pursuant to the provisions of section 27, art. 10, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, the city of Miami, by virtue of an ordinance duly passed by the mayor and board of commissioners, … The question was before this court in Coleman v. Frame, 26 Okla. 193 , 109 Pac. 928 , 31 E. R. A. (N. S.) 556, wherein it was held by Mr.