Case law

Halliburton Services v. Alexander

547 P.2d 958 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 10, 1976

See Choctaw County v. Bateman, 208 Okl. 16 , 252 P.2d 465 (1952); Phillips Pipe Line Company v. Brown, Okl., 301 P.2d 689 (1956); Bill Morris Tank Co. v. Martin, Okl., 349 P.2d 15 (1960). … In Moten v.

Baker v. Chaney

167 Okla. 164 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 16, 1934

Co. v. Brown, 55 Okla. 173 , 154 P 1161 ; Swindler v. Selby, 130 Okla. 294 , 267 P. 471 , and many other cases to the same effect decided by this court. … Co. v. Starks, 116 Okla. 149 , 243 P. 723 ; Tidal Refining Co. v. Charles E. Knox Oil Co., 116 Okla. 1 , 243 P. 150 ; Armstrong v. City of Tulsa, 102 Okla. 49 , 226 P. 560 ; Beggs Oil Co. v.

Lyons v. Robson

330 P.2d 593 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1958

In Shell Oil Co. v. … In Brown v. Shafer, Okl., 325 P.2d 743 , it was held that no particular form of notice to further develop is required. Written notice is not necessary.

Johnston & Larimer D. G. Co. v. Helf

178 Okla. 527 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1936

supra, while plaintiff had suit pending against the principal maker and sureties on a note, the maker sold his mercantile business under the Bulk Sales Law,, control of the fund derived therefrom being given to one Addison Brown … Plaintiff retained and cashed the draft, crediting same on the note sued on, but returned the new note to-Brown, informing him ' that it intended to proceed with its suit on the old note for the balance due.

Scott v. Jordan

55 Okla. 708 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1916

See, also, Gate City Abstract Co. v. Post, 55 Neb. 742 , 76 N. W. 471 ; Goldberg et al. v. Sisseton Loan & Title Co., 24 S. D. 49, 123 N. W. 266 , 140 Am. St. Rep. 755 ; Brown v. Sims, 22 Ind. App. 317 , 53 N. … Laws 1910; Patterson et al. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 24 Okla. 747 , 104 Pac. 31 ; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Bankers’ Natl. Bank, 32 Okla. 290 , 122 Pac. 499 ; Zeno v. Bazzell et al., 41 Okla. 574 , 139 Pac. 281 .

Clark v. Bank of Hennessey

14 Okla. 572 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 3, 1904

(Small v. Douthitt, 1 Dassler, 317; Jackson v. Latta, 15 Kan. 216 ; Aydelotte et al. v. Brittan at al., 29 Kan. 98 ). … , to be approved by them and held by such custodian as the board may designate.”

Updike Advertising System, Inc. v. State Industrial Commission

282 P.2d 759 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1955

In the case of Clardy v. … Brown v. State Election Board, 197 Okl. 169 , 170 P.2d 200 .’

Rector v. State

495 P.2d 826 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 28, 1972

The second question was adequately covered in the case of Newman v. State ex rel. Board of Regents, 490 P.2d 1079 (1971). … Oklahoma City v. Taylor, Okl., 470 P.2d 325, 329 (1970) (concurring specially); Newman v. State ex rel. Board of Regents, Okl., 490 P.2d 1079 , 1085 (1971) (dissenting).

Oklahoma Union Railway Co. v. Mitchell

105 Okla. 152 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1924

Co. v. Lee, 37 Okla. 545 , 132 Pac. 1072 ; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Davis, 37 Okla. 340 , 132 Pac. 337 ; Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Burgess, 21 Okla. 653 , 97 Pac. 271 . … Constantin Refining Co. v. Thwing Instrument Co., 72 Okla. 16 , 178 Pac. 111 ; Holland Banking Co. v. Dicks, 67 Okla. 228 , 170 Pac. 253 ; Norman v.

Taylor v. Granger

70 Okla. 267 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 23, 1918

S. v. Noble, 237 U. S. 74 , 35 Sup. Ct. 532, 59 L. Ed. 844 ; Rierdon v. Smith. 62 Okla. 48 , 101 Pac. 798 ; Brown v. Van Pelt. 64 Okla. 109 , 166 Pac. 102 . This cause is affirmed. By the Court: It is* so ordered.

Morton v. Orsdol

203 Okla. 394 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 19, 1950

And in Jones v. … And in Wilhite v.

Frensley v. Frensley

173 Okla. 321 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 10, 1935

L. & P. pp. 246, 256; Du Bois v. Brown, 1 Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 317; Waterman v. Ball, 64 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 368; Halsey v. Van Amringe et al., 4 Paige (N. Y.) 279; In re Estate of Schedel, 69 Cal. 241 , 10 P. 334 .” … Co. v. Love. 29 Okla. 738 , 119 P. 207 ; Oklahoma City v. Corporation Comm., 80 Okla. 194 , 195 P. 498 ; City of Tulsa v. Corporation Comm., 96 Okla. 180 , 221 P. 1000 .” The writ is granted. McNEILL, C. J„ and RILEY.

Boston v. Buchanan

75 O.B.A.J. 10 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 2003

Wright v. Grove Sun Newspaper Co., Inc., 1994 OK 37 , 873 P.2d 983, 987 ; Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 1992 OK 72 , 833 P.2d 1218, 1225-26 . . … Board of Law Library Trustees of Oklahoma County, State of Okl. v. State ex rel. Petuskey, 1991 OK 122, ¶ 10 , 825 P.2d 1285, 1289 . .

Shrier v. Morrison

357 P.2d 196 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 5, 1960

Bailey had removed from the clip board, all yellow copies of Norman Wholesale invoices for April reposing there, when Williams suggested that she look on the clip board again, she surprisingly found the previously absent … See Gartin’s Grocery v. Lucas County Co-op. Creamery Ass’n, and Ripon Knitting Works v.

Hugh Breeding Transport, Inc. v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.

175 Okla. 508 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 21, 1936

Coward, Plaintiff, v. … This court, in the yery recent case of Brown v. Wrightsman, 175 Okla. 189 , 51 P. (2d) 761 , announced the rule as follows: “Trial — Demurrer to Evidence of Plaintiff —Consideration.

Chicago, R. I. & G. R. Co. v. Jones

77 Okla. 140 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 3, 1920

St 79, was a suit by the widow and children to recover damages for the death of the deceased, who had boarded one of defendant’s trains in an intoxicated condition. … Co. v. McKinney (Pa.) 17 Atl. 14 ; Thomas v. Phila., etc., R. Co. (Pa.) 23 Atl. 989 ; Spencer v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 105 Wis. 311 , 81 N. W. 407 ; Faulkner v. Boston & M. R. Co., 187 Mass. 254 , 72 N.

Richardson v. Gregg

144 Okla. 102 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 1, 1930

The duty of the election board in case a voter is chal-' lenged is prescribed in section 10341, C. O. … (See, also, Burns v. Lackey [Ky.] 186 S. W. 909 .) The Supreme Court of Colorado in Neelley v.

State Pub. Co. v. Stearns, Mayor

25 Okla. 175 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 9, 1909

copy thereof as an exhibit to its petition), and that it had theretofore from time to time received from said city clerk all such matters for publication, that theretofore; to-wit, at the city •election in April, 1908, a board … On the authority of Homesteaders v. McCombs, 24 Okla. 201 , 103 Pac. 691 , this case should be, and it is accordingly, dismissed. All the Justices concur.

McMinn v. City of Oklahoma City

69 O.B.A.J. 42 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 1997

Board of County Comm’rs, 1979 OK 80 , 595 P.2d 1334 , and Mando v. Beame, 398 F.Supp. 569 (S.D.N.Y.1975). … Brashier v. Farmers Ins. Co.

Wilson v. Hefner

188 Okla. 292 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1940

Board of County Com’rs, Garfield County, v. Porter, 19 Okla. 173 , 92 P. 152 ; School Dist. No. 38 v. Mackey, 44 Okla. 408 , 144 P. 1032 ; City of Ada v. Carter, 162 Okla. 23 , 18 P. 2d 1051 ; Cannon v. … In Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co., 48 Okla. 156 , 149 P. 1136 , this court quoted with approval from the Kansas case, Wagner v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.