Case law

Vaughan Et Ux. v. Holder

41 Okla. 101 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 20, 1913

Brown, 20 Okla. 294 , 94 Pac. 557 ; Powers v. Van Dyke, 27 Okla. 27 , 111 Pac. 939 , 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 96; Martin v. Cox, 31 Okla. 543 , 122 Pac. 511 ; Bell v. Cook (C. C.) 192 Fed. 597 ; Larney v. … In Johnson v.

Rolater v. Strain

31 Okla. 58 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 14, 1911

Miner, 40 Ill. 33 ; City of Davenport v. D. & St. P. R. Co., 37 Iowa, 624 ; Rivers v. Cole, 38 Iowa, 677 ; Sammis v. Bennett, 32 Fla. 458 , 14 South. 90 , 22 L. R. A. 48; Davis v. Pender, Minor (Ala.) 57; Kerlinger v. … Barnes et al., 14 Minn. 526 ( Gil. 398 ) ; Gompf et al. v. Wolfinger et al., 67 Ohio St. 144 , 65 N. E. 878 ; Trustees of Canaan Township v. Board of Infirmary Directors, 46 Ohio St. 694 , 23 N. E. 492 .

City of Muskogee v. Bebee

193 Okla. 311 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 19, 1943

Oklahoma City v. State Industrial Commission, 147 Okla. 261 , 147 Okla. 303 , 298 P. 577 . Notice, also, holdings and discussions appearing in Board of County Commissioners of Marshall County v. … Lacy, 161 Okla. 138 , 17 P. 2d 398 ; Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County v. Bilby, 174 Okla. 199 , 50 P. 2d 398 .

W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Kelly

137 Okla. 22 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 28, 1929

Isabelle v. Edding, 119 Okla. 26 , 248 Pac. 871 ; Brown v. Gardner, 108 Okla. 199 , 235 Pac. 534 ; Davis v. DeGeer, 91 Okla. 111 , 216 Pac. 156 , and cases therein cited.

Dieterle Plumbing & Heating v. Green

605 P.2d 1335 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 29, 1980

Relying on Woods v. Levine, Okl., 311 P.2d 204 (1957), and Benton v. … Pirtle v.

State ex rel. Grigsby v. Silvers

198 Okla. 526 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 6, 1947

This is an action filed by the county attorney of Grady county to enjoin the defendant from practicing optometry without first obtaining a certificate from the State Board of Optometry. … Cherry v. Sharp, 172 Okla. 241 , 45 P. 2d 70 ; Barnsdall Oil Co. et al. v. Jackson, 180 Okla. 589 , 71 P. 2d 719 .

Neeley v. Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil Co.

64 L.R.A. 145 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 10, 1903

(Tex. and Pac. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593 ; Dunlap v. Northeastern R. R. 130 U. S. 649 ; Kane v. Northern Central Ry., 128 U. S. 91 ; Jones v. E. Tenn. V. & G. R. R. 128 U. S. 443 .) … walk upon such foot board and reach the shaft, pulleys and belts, and that it was more hazardous to use the ladder for such purposes.

Angle v. Blake

113 Okla. 236 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 10, 1925

BRANSON, V. C. J. The plaintiffs in the court below are the plaintiffs in error here. … In support of their contention, they cite the cases of Matney v. King, 20 Okla. 22 , 93 Pac. 737 ; Ewing v. Turner, 2 Okla. 94 , 35 Pac. 951 ; Cameron v. Parker, 2 Okla. 277 , 38 Pac. 14 ; State ex rel. Love v.

Matter of Del Moral Rodriguez

552 P.2d 397 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1976

While we agree with the United States Supreme Court in Bod-die v. … who is a member of said governing board.

Eason Oil Co. v. Howard Engineering, Inc.

61 O.B.A.J. 2540 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 2, 1990

The pooled participants rely on Union Oil Co. of California v. Brown, 28 for the *715 proposition that the subsequent despacing order diminished the contractual participants’ right to future production. … Brown, supra note 28 at 1109-1110. 30 . The pooled participants also cite Southern Union Production Co. v.

In Re Initiative Petition No. 10

186 Okla. 497 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 30, 1940

This appeal is from the findings of the city clerk of the sufficiency of initiative petition No. 10 of the city of Oklahoma City, which petition related to the adoption of an ordinance fixing the number of members of its board … Co. v. Prince, 133 Okla. 228 , 271 P. 253 ; Steiner v. Hughes, 172 Okla. 268 , 44 P. 2d 857 ; Ewart v.

Sears, Roebuck and Company v. Baker

286 P.2d 272 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 5, 1955

Collins, 208 Okl. 113 , 253 P.2d 838 ; Brown & Sons, Inc., v. Savage, 208 Okl. 668 , 258 P.2d 183 . … McKeever Drilling Co. v. Egbert, 170 Okl. 259 , 40 P.2d 32 ; Roy Deaton Co. v.

Wade v. Gould

8 Okla. 690 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 27, 1899

And it was said in Brown v. … And in Eddy v.

Schneider v. Decker

144 Okla. 213 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 9, 1930

Egbert v. S. L. & S. P. Ry. Co., 50 Okla. 623 , 151 Pac. 228 ; Dooley v. Foreman, 94 Okla. 163 , 221 Pac. 47 ; Board of Com’rs v. Baxter, 113 Okla. 280 , 241 Pac. 752 ; American Investment Co. v. … In Board of County Commissioners v.

St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Leflore County

143 Okla. 105 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 6, 1930

Louis-San Francisco Railway Company against the rate of levy fixed by the excise board of LeFlore county for the sinking fund of the town of Talihina for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1928. … Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Andrews, 137 Okla. 222 . 278 Pac. 617 , and Pitts v.

Newman v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co.

71 Okla. 284 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 31, 1918

City of Stillwater, 49 Okla. 560 , 153 Pac. 870 , and Board of County Com’rs v. Field, 63 Okla. 80 , 162 Pac. 733 . To the same effect is the case of Arnold v. City of Ft. Dodge, 111 Iowa, 152 , 82 N. W. 495 . … Co. v. Severns Pav. Co., 67 Okla. 206 , 170 Pac. 216 ; City of Chickasha v. O’Brien, 58 Okla. 46 , 159 Pac. 282 ; Alley v. City of Muskogee, 53 Okla. 230 , 156 Pac. 315 ; M., K. T. Ry. Co. v.

Robinson v. Rockett

275 P.2d 712 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 19, 1954

See Cordray v. Cordray, 19 Old. 36, 91 P. 781 ; Locke v. Gilbert, 133 Okl. 93 , 271 P. 247 ; Cashman v. Browning, 177 Okl. 446 , 60 P.2d 619 , and the discussion in Lind v. McKinley, 196 Okl. 4 , 161 P.2d 1016 . … See Kingkade v. Plummer, 111 Okl. 197 , 239 P. 628 ; Cressler v. Brown, 79 Okl. 170 , 192 P. 417 ; 44 Am.Jur., Quieting Title, Sec. 53; Annotations, 97 A.L.R. 711 .

Lewis v. Atherton

5 Okla. 90 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1897

We consider many of the cases so cited inapplicable and do not think any of them support the contention of counsel, unless it be Holden v. Garrett, 23 Kas. 66 , which we shall notice later. Brown v. … “Under the recording act of 1848, the plaintiff would have been brought within the rule laid down in the case of Tuthill v. Brown, 1 G. Greene 189, and of Martin v.

Skinner v. First Nat. Bank of Davis

135 Okla. 61 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 20, 1928

The following authorities tend to support this contention: Sherrard’s Ex’rs v. Johnson et al. (Pa.) 44 Atl. 252 ; Gillespie v. Switzer (Neb.) 62 N. W. 228 ; Cleveland v. Tittle (Tex. Civ. App.) 22 S. W. 8 ; Weis v. … Tierman, 91 Ill. 27 ; Reeves v. Burnham, 3 How. (4 Miss.) 25; Brown v. Long (N. C.) 36 Am. Dec. 43 ; DeLoach v. Robbins (Ala.) 14 So. 777 ; Morgan v. Evans (Ill.) 22 Am. Rep. 154 ; Yeager v. Wright (Ind.) 13 N.

Clift v. Grooms

331 P.2d 382 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 21, 1958

Comer, 193 Okl. 133 , 141 P.2d 258, 260, 261 , between that case and Royston v. … Nance, 55 Okl. 266 , 155 P. 610, 614 , L.R.A.1916E 283; Morlan v. Durland Trust Co., 127 Colo. 5 , 252 P.2d 98 , 36 A.L.R.2d 874 ; Braun v. Brown, 14 Cal.2d 346 , 94 P.2d 348 , 127 A.L.R. 773 ; Donovan v.