Case law

In Re Initiative Petition No. 13 of Oklahoma City

369 P.2d 458 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 27, 1962

In Caruth v. … Burns v. Linn, 49 Okl. 526 , 153 Pac. 826 , Ann.Cas.1918B, 139; Owen v. City of Tulsa, 27 Okl. 264 , 111 Pac. 320 ; Bodine v. [City of] Oklahoma City, 79 Okl. 106 , 187 Pac. 209 ; Watts, Mayor v. State ex rel.

Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Eppler

182 Okla. 391 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 29, 1938

Grayson v. Stith, 181 Okla. 131 , 72 P.2d 820 . In Staples v. … In Stephenson v.

Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State

28 Okla. 12 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 10, 1911

This case presents an appeal from an order cf the Corporation Commission, dated June 38, 1910, repealing an order made on May 1, 1909, which is as follows: “All passengers boarding trains without tickets at stations where … Co. et al. v. State of Oklahoma, 27 Okla. 329; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State of Oklahoma et al., 24 Okla. 805 , 103 Pac. 351 . All the Justices concur.

H. F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Walker

168 Okla. 355 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 8, 1934

Board of Railroad Commissioners, 76 Mont. 305 , 247 P. 162 , in holding that the order of the board requiring the carrier to construct a spur track was void because not made with due process, it is said: “When we conceive … Board of Supervisors (Iowa) 180 N. W. 988 .

United States Supply Co. v. Gillespie

65 Okla. 198 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 22, 1917

See, also, Bank v. Brown, 85 Tex. 80 , 23 S. W. 862 . In Stitt et al. v. Namakan Lumber Co., 95 Minn. 91 , 103 N. … (Mass.) 378; Lincoln v. S. & S. Ry Co., 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 425; Hicks v. Foster, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 663; Falk v. Waterman, 49 Cal. 224 ; Earl v. Tupper, 45 Vt. 275 ; Landa v. Obert, 45 Tex. 539 ; Jandt v. South, 2 Dak. 46 .

Ford v. Holt

191 Okla. 534 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 16, 1942

En route to the job plaintiff was thrown from the running board of the subforeman’s car and sustained serious personal injuries. … J., CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, GIBSON, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. HURST and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.

Steffens Ice Cream Co. v. Jarvis

132 Okla. 300 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 5, 1928

Louis Mining & Smelting Co. v. Industrial Commission, 113 Okla. 179 , 241 Pac. 170 , which quotes from the Oklahoma Hospital v. … V. C. J., and HARRISON, PHELPS, LESTER, HUNT, and RILEY, JJ., concur.

First Nat. Bank of Ardmore v. Com'rs of Land Office

127 Okla. 190 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1927

. & Loan, 61 Okla. 230 , 157 Pac. 366 ; McKee v. Howard, 38 Okla. 422 , 134 Pac. 44 ; McAdams v. Latham, 21 Okla. 511 , 96 Pac. 584 ; Jenkins v. Brown, 46 Okla. 132 , 148 Pac. 697 .” … Brown v. First National Bank, 35 Okla. 726 , 130 Pac. 140 .

Coblentz v. Ives

52 Okla. 44 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 19, 1915

In the case of Miller v. Fryer, 35 Okla. 145 , 128 Pac. 713 , Hayes, J., speaking for the court, said: “This section of • the statute [referring to section 2215, Como. Laws 1909 (section 2260, Rev. … In Sims v. Brown, 46 Okla. 767 , 149 Pac. 876 , it. is said: “Section 2215, Comp. Laws 1909 (section 2260, Rev..

McGuire v. Skelton

36 Okla. 500 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 7, 1913

Butter v. Kent, 19 Johns. *(N. Y.) 223, 10 Am. Dec. 219 . … International Harvester Co. v. Cameron, 25 Okla. 256 , 105 Pac. 189 . There is, therefore, nothing in the first paragraph of the petition to show a right of action in the plaintiff.

Mid-Continent Pipe & Supply Co. v. State Industrial Commission

182 Okla. 428 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 5, 1938

BAYLESS, V. C. J. The State Industrial Commission in making an award of compensation to E. R. … Malosh v. Mid-Continent Pipe & Supply Company — injured 8-19-36.

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee

39 Okla. 728 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 18, 1913

facts These questions seem to be definitely settled by the decisions of this court; and it thus appears: (1) That a motion for new trial is unauthorized in such cases, and the appeal should have been from the judgment (Board … Boulanger v. Midland Valley Mercantile Co., 36 Okla. 120 , 128 Pac. 113 ; Reed v. Woolly, 31 Okla. 783 , 123 Pac. 1121 ; Doorley v. Buford & George Mfg. Co., 5 Okla. 594 , 49 Pac. 936 ; Williams v.

Stapleton Motor Sales Co. v. Oates

109 Okla. 173 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 16, 1924

It was held in Hanna v. … Stapleton of Stapleton-Brown Company of Port Worth, Tex.

Kelly v. Watkins

170 Okla. 185 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 8, 1935

And it is held in Render et al. v. … Board of Commissioners v. Western, etc., Co., 122 Okla. 244 , 254 P. 741 ; Missouri, K. & O. Coach Lines v. Benton, 157 Okla. 10 , 10 P. (2d) 451 . It is held in Pyle v.

Fischer v. Oklahoma City

198 Okla. 22 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 24, 1946

At the outset they are familiar with our decisions in Ramsey v. Leeper, 168 Okla. 43 , 31 P. 2d 852 , and Harn v. … In addition, the weight of authority, including our opinion in Travis v.

Oklahoma Union Ry. Co. v. Dascus

133 Okla. 83 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 23, 1928

This case is governed by rule, or rather analogous principles, set forth in the case of Adams Oil, Gas & Development Co. v. Hivick, 74 Okla. 117 , 176 Pac. 938 ; and the case of Cherry v. … Brown, 79 Okla. 215 , 192 Pac. 227 .

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. State Ex Rel. Freeling

75 Okla. 42 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 25, 1919

Co. v. Anderson, 50 Fla. 501 , 39 South. 392 ; Stories Eq. Pl., sec. 271. … In the case of Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10 , 16 Sup. Ct. 443, 40 L.

Dimmers v. Regan

68 Okla. 322 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 20, 1918

Rumbaugh v. Rumbaugh, 39 Okla. 445 , 135 Pac. 937 ; Wade v. Ray, 41 Okla. 641 . 139 Pac. 116 ; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Brown, 55 Okla. 173 , 154 Pac. 1161 ; Proctor v. Capps; 67 Okla. 130 , 169 Pac. 894 . … Ry Co. v. Crider, 52 Okla. 487 , 153 Pac. 63 .

Williams v. Johnson

396 P.2d 518 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 28, 1964

In Wilkinson v. … In the third paragraph of the syllabus in Barrett v. Board of Com’rs of Tulsa County, 185 Okl. 111 , 90 P.2d 442 , we held: “Local or special laws are all those that rest on a false or deficient classification.

Cates v. Miles

67 Okla. 192 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 11, 1917

Brown, and tbe court having beard tbe said demurrer, and the argument of counsel thereon, sustains tbe same, and plaintiff is given ten days to amend. … Freeling v. Martin, 62 Okla. 795 , 162 Pac. 1088 , is decisive of this point. In that case Mr.