Case law

Moore v. Bevis

9 Okla. 672 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 8, 1900

(Gi llett and Libbey et al. v. Murphy, Carroll and Brough, 7 Okla. 91 .) In Meyer Brothers Drug Company v. Kelley et al. 5 Okla. 118 , it is said: “The rule of Light v. … In Tootle et al. v.

Chisholm v. Weise

5 Okla. 217 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1897

(Campbell v. Coonradt, 27 Kan. 704 ; Connaway v. Gore, 27 Kan. 127 ; Burdette v. Cordan, id. 375; Buettinger v. Hurley, 9 Pac. Rep. 197 ). Also that the same doctrine obtains in the state of Iowa, (Ensley v. … Bennett, 37 Iowa, 15 ), and in the state of Nebraska, (Brown v. Feagins, 55 N. W. 1048 ).

Oklahoma Automobile Co. v. Benner

70 Okla. 261 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 23, 1918

Laws 1910, in support of this contention, McCabe v. Wilson, 17 Okla. 355 , 87 Pac. 320 , is relied upon. … See Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Lamb, 28 Okla. 275 , 114 Pac. 333 ; R. P. Smith & Sons v. Raines, D. G. Co, 37 Okla. 39 , 130 Pac. 133 ; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 3 Kan. App. 260 , 45 Pac. 118 ; Sloan v.

Spaulding v. Beidleman

49 Okla. 197 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 12, 1915

Treas., v. … In re Brown, 2 Okla. 590 , 39 Pac. 469 ; Swan v. United States, 2 Okla. 114 , 37 Pac. 1061 ; Vowell v. Taylor, 8 Okla. 625 , 58 Pac. 944 ; Moberly v. Roth et al., 23 Okla. 856 , 102 Pac. 182 ; Rolater v.

Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Cline

292 P.3d 27 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 2012

Upon review of the record and the briefs of the parties, this Court determines this matter is controlled by the United States Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. … Personhood Okla. v.

School Dist. No. 44, Caddo Co. v. Turner

13 Okla. 71 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 9, 1903

Bank v. School Dists. Nos. 6 and 31, 43 N. W. 822 .) The action of the defendant in error being wholly void, injunction was the proper remedy. (Board of Education v. Boyer, Supt., 5 Okla. 225 ; Peth et al. v.

Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co.

203 Okla. 35 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 17, 1950

To the same effect is the holding of this court in Leininger et al. v. Ward-Beekman & Brooks, Inc., 139 Okla. 292 , 282 P. 467 ; Glasco v. State Election Board et al., 121 Okla. 119 , 248 P. 642 ; Foot et al. v. … In Parker, Director of Agricul *47 ture, et al. v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 , it is said: “ ...

Smith v. Torr

310 P.2d 378 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 26, 1957

. * * * ” This court in the cases of Wiebener v. Peoples, 44 Okl. 32 , 142 P. 1036 , and Stewart v. … Bowles v. Brown, 187 Okl. 264 , 102 P.2d 837 ; Winemiller v. Lorton, 121 Okl. 99 , 249 P. 406 .

State Ex Rel. Brett v. Kenner

21 Okla. 817 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 29, 1908

Moore v. Archibald, 5 N. D. 359 , 66 N. … Kocourek v. City of Chicago, 193 Ill. 520 , 62 N. E. 179 , 58 L. R.

City Nat. Bank of Madill v. Gayle, County Treasurer

55 Okla. 301 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 8, 1916

In the amended petition the plaintiff sets up that the amount of the taxes due and owing the county from the plaintiff for that year amounted to $1,550.50, and that in a proceeding brought to review the action of the board … This point has been determined by this court in the case of Trimmer v. State, 43 Okla. 152 , 141 Pac. 784 , wherein the court held: “By the enactment of section 2, Sess.

Tinker Investment & Mortgage Corp. v. City of Midwest City

65 O.B.A.J. 1422 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 19, 1994

See also, Spiegel v. … County Beverage, supra note 22 at 295; Harden v. Board of Education, 197 Okl. 598 , 173 P.2d 429, 431-32 (1946); Hazel v. Edwards, 199 Okl. 169 , 184 P.2d 981, 982 (1947). 34 .

Flynt v. Hastings

122 Okla. 60 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 23, 1926

Ct. 532, 59 Ed. 844; Gladney v. Richardson, 44 Okla. 94, 143 Pac. 683 : Hudson v. Hildt. 51 Okla. 59 , 151 Pac. 1063 : Brown v. Van Pelt, 64 Okla. 109 , 166 Pac. 102 ; Carden v. … Humble, 6 Okla. 165 . 184 Pac. 104 ; Taylor v. Callaan, 82 Okla. 67 , 198 Pac. 487 ; Walker v. Holmes, 91 Okla. 64 , 215 Pac. 1065 ; Chism v. Majors, 92 Okla. 45 , 217 Pac. 465 ; Hull v.

Potter v. Pure Oil Co.

182 Okla. 509 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 19, 1938

That a spring board or diving board was maintained and that all these were in convenient distance and plain view of the section line where people traveled and had a right to be. … Co. v. Brame, 95 U.

Beck v. Traders General Ins. Co.

182 Okla. 251 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 21, 1938

This court affirmed in Beck v. Davis, 175 Okla. 623 , 54 P.2d 371 . … Ladd v. Hudson, 143 Okla. 174 , 288 P. 331 . However, no issue was made in the pleadings on this point.

Thornton v. Woodson

570 P.2d 340 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 11, 1977

*341 BERRY, Justice: A customer, Opal V. … Wade v. Brown, Okl., 516 P.2d 526, at 528 . 18 O.S.1971 § 1.204a applies where defendant is a non-resident non-domesticated corporation with no service agent in Oklahoma.

Ohio Oil Co. v. Payne

187 Okla. 464 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 18, 1940

The order of the board of equalization is a quasi-judicial order, which, if not appealed from, becomes a final order and cannot be collaterally attacked. Hopper et al. v. Okla. County, 43 Okla. 288 , 143 P. 4 ; State v. … S., Counties, sec. 91 b; Board of County Com’rs of Marion County v. Powell (Ind.) 10 N. E. 2d 728 .

Investors Royalty Co. v. Lewis

185 Okla. 302 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 20, 1939

In support of that contention plaintiff relies on Brazell v. Brown (1934) 169 Okla. 623 , 38 P.2d 17 . … WELCH, V. C. J., and RILEY, J., absent.

Oakes v. Trumbo

201 Okla. 102 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 7, 1948

Bellaire Securities Corp. et al. v. Brown et al., 124 Fla. 47 , 168 So. 625 . The New York court said: “A memorandum which did not contain buyer’s name was an insufficient compliance with the statute of frauds.” … Illinois Pearl Button Co., Inc., v. Acme Plastics Mfg. Co., Inc., 51 N. Y. S. 2d 5. In the case of Jennings et al. v.

Dierks v. Walsh

203 Okla. 113 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 23, 1950

“It was held in Brown v. … See Cressler v. Brown (1920) 79 Okla. 170 , 192 P. 417 , and Morrissey v. Shriver (1923) 88 Okla. 269 , 214 P. 702 .”

City of Tulsa v. Richmond

123 Okla. 255 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 21, 1926

The language of that section, italicized and relied on in its brief, reads; “Such compensation, irrespective of any benefit from any improvements proposed, *257 shall be ascertained by a board of commissioners of not less … Arthur v. Board of Com’rs of Choctaw County, 43 Okla. 174 , 141 Pac. 1 ; Stinchcomb et al. v. Oklahoma City, 81 Okla. 250 , 198 Pac. 508 .