Case law

Lowenstein v. Holmes

40 Okla. 33 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 20, 1913

State v. Thompson, 83 Mo. 257 ; State v. Butterfield et al., 75 Mo. 297 ; State v. … Grove v. Kansas City, supra; Brown et al. v. First National Bank of Temple, 35 Okla. 736, 130 Pac. 140 .

Harlow Publishing Co. v. Walden

168 Okla. 163 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 1, 1934

Therein the court quoted with approval from Farmers’ Bank of Roff v. … In Colonial Jewelry Co. v.

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Thomas

911 P.2d 907 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 21, 1995

Oklahoma, Bar Association v. Brown, 863 P.2d 1108, 1111 (Okla.1993). … Oklahoma Bar Association v. Brown, supra.

Bozarth v. Mitchell

59 Okla. 60 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 25, 1916

In Bowen v. … Harnage v. Martin, supra. See also Bowen v. Carter, supra; Leak et al. v. Joslyn, 20 Okla. 200 , 94 Pac. 518 ; Mitchell v. Bell, 31 Okl. 117 , 120 Pac. 560 ; Citizens' Trading Co. v.

LOCKETT v. EVANS

330 P.3d 488 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 23, 2014

Easterwood v. Choctaw County District Attorney, 2002 OK CIV APP 41 , 45 P.3d 436 . … See Conner v. North Carolina Council of State, 365 N.C. 242 , 716 S.E.2d 836, 841-842 (2011); Middleton v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 278 S.W.3d 193, 195-196 (Mo.2009); Abdur'Rahman 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.

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ward

68 Okla. 201 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 4, 1918

Co. v. Hughes, 64 Okla. 74 , 166 Pac. 411 ; M., O. & G. R. Co. v. Overmyre, 58 Okla. 723 , 160 Pac. 933 ; Seaboard A. L. R. Co. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 , 34 Sup. Ct. 635, 58 L. Ed. 1062 , L. R. A. 1915C, 1, Ann. … Co. v. Brown, 45 Okla. 143 , 144 Pac. 1075 , and denied by this court. In affirming this court in that ease, the Supreme Court, of the United States said: “The requirement of Const. U. S.

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 .

Elias v. City of Tulsa

408 P.2d 517 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 26, 1965

Key v. Donnell, 107 Okl. 157 , 231 P. 546 . In Roberts v. … Decisions to the same or similar effect are Wilkinson v. Hale, 184 Okl. 165 , 86 P. 2d 305 ; Barrett v. Board of Comr’s of Tulsa County, 185 Okl. 111 , 90 P.2d 442 ; Williams v.

In Re Estate of Lacy

431 P.2d 366 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 23, 1967

Slater v. Phipps, 193 Okl. 267 , 143 P.2d 133 . … Brown v. Brown, Okl., 287 P.2d 913 . But proof of testamentary capacity of a testator is not necessarily confined to the exact time of the execution of the will.

Mohrman v. Paxton

172 Okla. 389 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 1935

In the case of Glaze v. … Brown, 87 Okla. 46 , 208 P. 785 ; Bales v. Breedlove, 96 Okla. 280 , 222 P. 542 ; Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. v. Allen, 143 Okla. 290 , 288 P. 981 . The above rule is controlling of the issues presented in this case.

Kalka v. Mathews

186 Okla. 181 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 14, 1939

The controlling rule in an action of this nature was announced in Johnson v. Board of County Commissioners, 125 Okla. 96 , 256 P. 900 , and Oklahoma City v. Iams, 145 Okla. 272 , 292 P. 352 . … J., WELCH, V. C. J., and OSBORN, GIBSON, and DAVISON, JJ., concur.

State Ex Rel. Department of Public Welfare v. Martin

570 P.2d 623 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 11, 1977

At the time of the alleged commission of the malpractice, said hospital was operated under the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. … LAVENDER, V. C. J., and DAVISON, IRWIN, BERRY and BARNES, JJ., concur. HODGES, C.

Ramsey v. Fowler

308 P.2d 654 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 1957

In the case of Brown v. Harmon, 115 Okl. 277 , 242 P. 1047 , we discussed the degree of proof required to' establish a cause of action of this nature. … Adams v. Porter, 58 Okl. 225 , 158 P. 899, 900 .

Randolph v. Oklahoma City General Hospital

180 Okla. 513 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 18, 1937

The defendant furnished supplies, nurses, operating room, and board. … Also, in the Case of Emerson v.

Hinds v. Dandee Mfg. Co.

206 Okla. 392 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 29, 1952

As supporting this proposition he also cites Leonora National Bank v. Ragland, 128 Ky. 548 , 108 S. W. 854 ; Brown v. … In Potter v.

In Re Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

143 Okla. 217 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 6, 1930

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Tax Review denying the protest of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company against the rate of levy fixed by tbe excise board of Cotton county for the drag fund … J., LESTER, V. O. J., and RILEY, J., absent. Note — See “Taxation,” 37 Cyc. p. 1097, n. 92; p. 1118, n. 8.

In Re House Bill No. 145

205 Okla. 364 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 27, 1951

To the same effect see also: State v. Walker, 192 Iowa 823 , 185 N.W. 619 ; State v. Hickman, 195 Iowa 765 , 193 N.W. 21 ; State v. Norton, 64 N. D. 675 , supra; State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37 , 192 N. … State, 224 Ala. 540 , 141 So. 201 ; People, etc., v. Traeger, 372 Ill. 11 , 22 N.E. 2d 679 ; Browning v. State, 120 Ohio St. 62 , 165 N.E. 566 .

Miller v. Durrill

176 Okla. 402 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 4, 1936

In Omaha Bridge & Terminal Railway Co. v. Reed (Neb.) 90 N. … In the recent case of Morse v.

Morford v. Territory of Oklahoma

54 L.R.A. 513 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 8, 1901

In Hussey v. Smith, 99 U. … (Wi lcox v. Smith, 5 Wend. 231 ; Gilliam v. Reddick, 4 Ired. L. 368; Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me. 423.) Judicial as well as ministerial officers may be in this position. (Freeman, Judgments, sec. 148.)