Case law

Teague v. State Industrial Commission

112 Okla. 292 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 27, 1925

that neither the bottle-washers nor the delive/ry man was present at the scene of the accident is not material in determining whether more than one workman was employed. ’Petitioner contends, under Southwestern Grocery Co. v. … This contention is untenable under Brown v. Sinclair Refining Co., 86 Okla. 143 , 206 Pac. 1042 , and Merrick & Coe v. Modlin et al., 88 Okla. 83 , 211 Pac. 510 .

Shawnee Cotton Oil Co. v. Bumgarner

180 Okla. 103 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 13, 1937

Petitioners have apparently overlooked the decisions of this court to the contrary, as announced in Eubanks v. Barnsdall Oil Co., 169 Okla. 31 . 35 P. (2d) 873 , and Fox v. Brown, 176 Okla. 201 , 55 P. (2d) 129 . … In Eubanks v.

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Gray

181 Okla. 12 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 28, 1937

The' order of the administrative board was presented to us for review. Our decision was one of affirmance. Gray v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 165 Okla. 301 , 25 P. (2d) 761 . … Maryland Casualty Co. et al., v. Whitt, 167 Okla. 261 , 29 P. (2d) 65 ; Lott v. Continental Cas. Co. (Kan.) 284 P. 823 ; Robertson v. Board of Com’rs of of Iott Co. (Kan.) 252 P. 196 .

Moseley v. Smith

173 Okla. 503 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 17, 1935

Alexander, 52 Okla. 122 , 152 P. 819 ; Brown et al. v. First Nat. Bk. of Temple, 35 Okla. 726 , 130 P. 140 . … Brown and Mr. Bostick, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this court for examination and report to the court. Thereafter, upon consideration, this opinion was adopted. McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. C.

Givens v. Jones

158 Okla. 124 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 1932

Tiger v. Brown, 130 Okla. 83 , 265 P. 124 ; Fabric Fire Hose Co. v. Afton, 95 Okla. 298 , 219 P. 680 . … Little, 81 Okla. 1 , 196 P. 536 ; Tiger v. Brown, 130 Okla. 83 , 265 P. 124 ; Stolfa v. Gaines, 140 Okla. 292 , 283 P. 563 .

Hanenkratt v. Hamil

10 Okla. 219 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1900

V. … Co. v. Van Cant, 40 Ind. 233 . McPhail v. Hyatt, 29 Iowa, 137 . Maudlin v. N.W. Turnp. Co . 48 Ind. 492 . Excelsior Draining Co. v. Brown, 47 Ind. 19 , and numerous other authorities.

Nye v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co.

105 Okla. 104 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 29, 1924

Cressler v. Brown et al., 79 Okla. 170 , 192 Pac. 417 . See other cases cited therein, including the leading case of Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 352 , 24 L. Ed. 195 . … Cressler v. Brown et al., supra; Morrissey v. Shriver et al., 88 Okla. 269 , 214 Pac. 702 .

Bernert v. Bernert

123 Okla. 78 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 6, 1926

Noyes v. Tootle, 2 Ind. Ter. 144, 48 S. W. 1031 . “A partnership is an association of two or more persons for the purpose of carrying on a business together and dividing the profits between them.” King v. … Municipal Paving Co. v. Herring, 50 Okla. 470 . 150 Pac. 1067 . ■‘TVhere one denies he is a member of the firm, the burden is on the party alleging the partnership.” Martin-Brown Co. v. Morris, 1 Ind. Ter. 495, 42 S.

McAlester Colliery Co. v. State Industrial Commission

85 Okla. 66 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 17, 1922

The same rule has been announced in ¡Board of Commissioners of Cleveland County v. Barr et al., 68 Oklahoma, 173 Pac. 206 ; Stephenson v. State Industrial Commission et al., 79 Okla. 228 , 192 Pac. 580 ; Raulerson v. … Mitchell, 81 Okla. 201 , 197 Pac. 171 ; Board of County Com’rs of Okmulgee County v. State ex rel. W. C. Jackson et al., 83 Okla. 48 , 201 Pac. 998 .

Avery v. Goodrich

103 Okla. 156 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1924

In the case of Jackson et al. v. … “That all contracts of sales for future delivery of cotton, grain, stocks or other commodities (1) made in accordance with the rules of any board of trade, exchange or similar institution where such contracts of sale are

Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Rogers

160 Okla. 164 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 24, 1932

In Barton v. Stuckey, Co. … In Barton v. Stuckey, Co.

Davis v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

488 P.2d 1261 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 14, 1971

Worth, Texas, and its board of directors, and the board of directors of all the corporations, meet in Ft. Worth. … In Thompson v.

Edmonds v. Town of Haskell

121 Okla. 18 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1926

Oklahoma City v. Shields, 22 Okla. 265 , 100 Pac. 559 ; Edwards v. Thrash, 26 Okla. 472 , 109 Pac. 832 ; followed in McAlester v. McMurray, 26 Okla. 517 , 109 Pac. 838 ; Alley v. … But the jurisdiction over and manner of exercising these rights through a mayor) and city council, or mayor and board of aldermen, or through a board of trustees, have been substantially the same at all times, and every additional

In Re Park College

170 Okla. 132 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 1934

Beta Theta Pi Corporation v. Board of Com’rs of Cleveland Co., 108 Okla. 78 , 234 P. 354 . … In Morgan et al. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.

Oklahoma City Golf & Country Club v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

63 O.B.A.J. 292 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 28, 1992

On March 27,1989, the board of directors of the Club sent a letter to the members informing them that board was recommending an assessment of $1,140,000 to fund several improvements to enhance the physical facilities of the … Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413, 420 , 30 S.Ct. 543, 543-44 , 54 L.Ed. 817 (1910); Wilson & Co. v. Hickey, 186 Okla. 324, 325 , 97 P.2d 564, 566 (1940).

In Re Will of Tiger

94 Okla. 103 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 1923

Brown, both testified that they spoke and understood thé English language only; and ail agree that the testator did not speak any English word in their presence at the time the will was executed and- attested by them, and … Blundell, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Patsy Poff, Deceased, et al. v. W. R.

In Re City of Enid

195 Okla. 365 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 24, 1945

.’ - See, also, Sparling v. Refunding Board, 189 Ark. 189 , 71 S.W. 2d 182 . … Pearson v. City of Seattle, 14 Wash. 438 , 44 P. 884 ; Young v. Board of Trustees, 90 Mont. 576 , 4 P. 2d 725 ; Beard v. Board of Education, 81 Utah, 51 , 16 P. 2d 900 ; Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms.

Hazel v. Edwards

199 Okla. 169 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 23, 1947

Harrod, 189 Okla. 47 , 113 P. 2d 385 ; Routh v. Tonini, 193 Okla. 87 , 141 P. 2d 287 ; Harden v. Board of Education, 197 Okla. 598 , 173 P. 2d 429 . In Mires v. Hogan, supra, we said: “Under section 5238, Rev. … In Huddleston v.

Terry v. Bishop

158 P.3d 1067 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 8, 2007

of such body or board. … State v.

McDONALD v. THOMPSON

2018 OK 25 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 2018

McDONALD v. THOMPSON Skip to Main Content Accessibility Statement Help Contact Us e-payments Careers Home Courts Decisions Programs News Legal Research Court Records Quick Links OSCN Found Document:McDONALD v. … Further, the use of the term "all" as emphasized above necessarily implies the pay increase will be given across the board without regard to merit.