Case law

Seaver v. Rulison

29 Okla. 128 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 27, 1911

W. v. Furman, 6 Okla. 649 , 52 Pac. 932 ; Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. v. Edmondson, 6 Okla. 671, 52 Pac. 939 ; Board of Com’rs v. Hubble, 8 Okla. 169 , 56 Pac. 1058 . … Terrapin v. Barker, 26 Okla. 93 , 109 Pac. 931 ; Roof et al. v. Franks, 26 Okla. 392 , 110 Pac. 1098 ; Lynn et al. v. Jack son, 26 Okla. 852, 110 Pac. 727 ; Indian Land & Trust Co. v.

Winkler & McQueen, Inc. v. State

167 Okla. 458 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 13, 1934

See, also, Board of Equalization of Carter County v. Carter Oil Co., 152 Okla. 99 , 3 P. (2d) 816 , and In re Assessment of Omitted Property of Prairie Oil & Gas Co., 159 Okla. 181 , 13 P. (2d) 580 . … J., CULLISON, V. O. J., and OSBORN and WELCH, JJ., concur.

Oklahoma State Bank v. Van Hassel

189 Okla. 48 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 3, 1941

V. … V.

Cunningham v. Oklahoma City

188 Okla. 466 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 15, 1941

Board of County Com’rs, 188 Okla. 260 , 108 P. 112 ; Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691 , 26 L. Ed. 238 ; Johnson v. Whelan et al., 186 Okla. 511 , 98 P. 2d 1103 ; Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U. S. 276 , 49 L. … The case is therefore controlled by the rule announced by the first syllabus in Hine v. Board of County Com’ rs, supra, which reiterates the rule many times previously incorporated in numerous opinions of this court.

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Gilbreath

49 Okla. 681 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 11, 1916

The running board is the board running from the cab window ■at the side of the boiler to enable the engineer to step out of his cab window to walk around the boiler in the event that anything goes wrong. … In another, Schulz. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 57 Minn. 271 , 59 N.

The City of Guthrie v. the New Vienna Bank

4 Okla. 194 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 6, 1896

The township, town and city boards of equalization meets on the first Monday in June. … Their report is certified to the auditor of the Territory and the territorial board meets for final action, on these assessments, and such other assessments as said board is-authorized to make, on the first Monday in July

Tice v. Tice

672 P.2d 1168 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 22, 1983

See also Byers v. Byers, 618 P.2d 930, 933 (Okl.1980); Stanley v. Madison, 11 Okl. 288 , 66 P. 280 (1901). 2 . Sellers v. Sellers, 428 P.2d 230, 240 (Okl.1967); Scrivner v. … Beach v. Beach, note 3, supra. 6 . Miller v. Long, 210 P.2d 147, 150 (Okl.1949). 7 . State ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Brown, 519 P.2d 491, 495 (Okl.1974). 8 . Allen v.

St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Fick

47 Okla. 530 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 1, 1915

Co. v. Rushing, 31 Okla. 231 , 120 Pac. 973 . … Co. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607 , 97 Am. Dec. 478 ; Yarnell v. Railroad Co., 113 Mo. 570 , 21 S. W. 1 , 18 L. R. A. 599; St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Green, 85 Ark. 117 , 107 S. W. 168 , 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1148; Raben v.

City of Ada v. Burrow

171 Okla. 142 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 5, 1935

Among such cases will be found the following: City of Picher v. Barrett, supra; City of Woodward v. Bowder, supra; Town of Quapaw v. Holden, supra; Town of Canton v. Mansfield, supra; City of Sapulpa v. … Williams, supra; City of Stillwater v. Swisher, supra; Armstrong v. City of Tulsa, supra; City of Duncan v. Brown, supra; City of Kaw City v. Wooden, 130 Okla. 162 , 265 P. 1057 .

Hartman v. Perdue

365 P.2d 163 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 28, 1961

Brown was introduced by proponents. Although he refused to give a direct answer to a ques *166 tion as'to whether she lacked testamentary-capacity at the time of making the will, he testified that in January, 1959, Mrs. … J., BLACKBIRD, V. C. J., and DAVISON, JOHNSON, IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., concur. WELCPI, J., concurs in result. HALLEY, J., dissents.

Baldwin-Hill Company v. Lochner

359 P.2d 228 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 31, 1961

Updike Advertising System v. State Industrial Comm., Okl., 282 P.2d 759 ; International Harvester Co. v. Harris, Okl., 272 P.2d 1046 ; See also Thomason v. Morrison, Okl., 321 P.2d 959 and Townley Dairy Farms v. … Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Savage, 208 Okl. 668 , 258 P.2d 183 ; Folsom Auto Supply v. Bristow, Okl., 275 P.2d 706 ; Shires v. Wrought Iron Range Company, supra.

Taylor v. State

118 Okla. 262 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 22, 1926

Ashbrook v. State, 92 Okla. 287 , 219 Pac. 347 . … The rule applicable to the situation disclosed by the record in the case at bar is stated in Ashbrook v.

Jones v. Lorenzen

36 O.B.A.J. 2237 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 23, 1965

Other Oklahoma decisions construing the effect of 43 O.S.1961, § 12, supra, are Scott v. Epperson, 141 Okl. 41 , 284 P. 19 ; Baker v. Carter, 180 Okl. 71 , 68 P.2d 85 ; and Long v. Brown, 186 Okl. 407 , 98 P.2d 28 . … In Stevens v.

Evans v. Raper

185 Okla. 426 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 31, 1939

Reeves Realty Co. v. Brown, 45 Okla. 737 , 147 P. 318 , and cases cited therein. This question is discussed and the authorities extensively reviewed in , the case of People ex rel. et al. v. … Co. v.

Miller v. White

129 Okla. 184 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 7, 1928

. * * % » This contention finds support in the opinions of this court in Maston v. Chandler Building & Loan Ass’n, 61 Okla. 230 , 157 Pac. 366 ; Continental Gin Co. v. … Arnold, 66 Okla. 132 , 167 Pac. 613 ; and Board of Commissioners v. Barber, 83 Okla. 54 , 200 Pac. 990 .

CPT Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2004-EC1 v. Cin Kham

278 P.3d 586 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 6, 2012

Fent v. Contingency Review Board, 2007 OK 27, ¶ 7 , 163 P.3d 512, 519-520 . In essence, a plaintiff? who has not suffered an injury attributable to the defendant lacks standing to bring a suit. … Lujan v.

Thurman v. Childers

198 Okla. 205 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 4, 1947

Payment of the claims from the Governor’s Emergency and Contingency Fund was denied in Wells v. Childers, 196 Okla. 355 , 165 P. 2d 371 . Payment is now sought from funds appropriated by S. B. 181, 1945 S. L. 465. … L. 1945, is not shown to exist until after July 30, 1945, the writ, under authority of Board of Com’rs of Carter County v. Worten, 128 Okla. 104 , 261 P. 553 , must be denied.

Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Beasley

67 Okla. 27 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 9, 1917

Brown, 167 Ala. 316 , 52 South. 829 . … Co. v. Roftis, supra; Reynolds v. Brooks, supra.

Egbert v. St. Louis S. F. R. Co.

50 Okla. 623 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 10, 1915

Opinion by BROWN, C. This is the second time" that this cause has been before this court." … C.), 79 Fed. 820 ; Blake v. Miller, 118 Ill. 500 , 8 N. E. 828 ; Ladd et al. v. Couzins, 35 Mo. 513 ; Baggs v. Smith, 53 Cal. 88 ; Shay v. Chicago Clock Co.; 111 Cal. 549 , 44 Pac. 237 ; Baker v.

King v. Huffines

454 P.2d 670 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 8, 1969

This principle was reiterated forcefully in Littlefield v. Howery, Okl., 266 P.2d 957, 959 . Most recently in Caddo Ind. S. D., etc. v. … Littlefield v. Howery, supra; Edwards v. Pierce, supra.