Case law

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Preston L. Doerflinger, Director, Office of Management and Enterprise Services

2017 OK AG 6 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 26, 2017

See Brown v. Claims Mgmt. … FALLIN Discussed at Length 2017 OK 13 , 391 P.3d 111 , BROWN v. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT RESOURCES INC. Discussed 1980 OK 117 , 621 P.2d 1142 , Draper v. State Discussed 2000 OK 17 , 997 P.2d 164 , 71 OBJ 721, Calvey v.

Opinion No. (1990)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 4, 1990

THE GOVERNING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS ARTICLE V, SECTION 23, WHICH PROVIDES: "NO MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE SHALL, DURING THE TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED, BE APPOINTED OR ELECTED TO ANY OFFICE OR COMMISSION IN THE STATE … ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 87-040 (COPY ENCLOSED) DISCUSSES AT PAGE 76 THE CASE OF SETTLES V. BOARD OF ED. OF DEPENDENT SCH. DIST. NO. D-38, 389 P.2D 356 (OKL. 1964).

Opinion No. (1989)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 6, 1989

more than ten percent (10%) of the net receipts from the solicitation of contributions, nor where the charitable organization whose name is used would receive less than ninety percent (90%) of said receipts, nor when the board … In so ruling, the Court relied on two previous decisions in the charitable solicitations area: Schaumburg v.

Opinion No. 72-261 (1973) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 16, 1973

In the case of Anderson v. … The court then quoted from Anderson v. Hill, supra, and from the case of Parkes v.

Opinion No. 68-198 (1968) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 23, 1968

That case concerned the bond itself, but the court cited the Kansas case of Schoenhoeft v. Board of Com'rs of Kearney County, 76 Kan. 883 , 92 P. 1097 , which did concern interest coupons. … Central Auxiliary Corporation v.

Opinion No. (1990)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 31, 1990

¶ 3 In Reynolds v. … Fair School Finance Council of Oklahoma v. State, 746 P.2d 1135 , 1150 (Okla. 1987); Reynolds v.

Opinion No. (1989)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 31, 1989

Central Liquor v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 640 P.2d 1351 , 1354 (Okla. 1982). … AMF Tubescope Company v.

Opinion No. 69-245 (1970) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 13, 1970

1304 ] (1969), reads in pertinent part: "Claims against the Court Fund shall include only such expenses as may be lawfully incurred incident to the operation of the court in said county, and are approved by the governing board … Supreme Court in the case of Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 , 89 S.Ct. 575 , 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969), which case you mention in your letter and which case apparently prompted your inquiry.

Opinion No. (1990)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 29, 1990

ANDREWS V. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 29, 737 P.2D 929, 931 (OKLA. 1987), QUOTING HAWORTH BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT I-6, MCCURTAIN COUNTY V. HAVENS, 637 P.2D 902, 904 (OKLA. CT. APP. 1981).

Opinion No. 68-214 (1968) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 20, 1968

In this regard, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma pertinently held in the syllabus of the opinion in the case of Board of County Com'rs of Tulsa County v. … And note this significant language in the body of the opinion in the case of Adams v.

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Arthur Hulbert, State Representative, District 14

2014 OK AG 9 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 15, 2014

."); State v. … See Williams v.

Opinion No. 69-118 (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 31, 1969

In the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. A. W. Stickle and Company 41 F. Supp. 268 (E.D. … In Volk v.

Opinion No. (1992)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 15, 1992

THE ACT DEFINES THE TERM "PUBLIC BODY" AS: "THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA OR ANY OFFICER, BOARD, COMMISSION OR AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, COUNTY. MUNICIPALITY. … WALKER V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO., 671 P.2D 672 (OKLA. 1983). THUS, ONE IS TO PRESUME THAT THE LEGISLATURE EXPRESSED ITS INTENT IN THE STATUTE AND INTENDED WHAT IT EXPRESSED. DARNELL V.

Opinion No. (2002)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 19, 2002

Land Office Comm'rs v. … In Betts v.

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Dana Prieto, Oklahoma State Senate, District 34

2024 OK AG 6 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 26, 2024

COM'RS Discussed at Length 1924 OK 396 , 231 P. 250 , 104 Okla. 260 , BOARD OF COM'RS OF TULSA COUNTY v. NEWS-DISPATCH PRINT Discussed 2010 OK 5 , 237 P.3d 134 , ESTATE OF CROWELL v. … F.O.P., Lodge No. 188 v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa Co. Discussed at Length 1982 OK 133 , 658 P.2d 464 , Summey v. Tisdale Discussed at Length 1951 OK 262 , 236 P.2d 987 , 205 Okla. 233 , JOHNSTON v.

Opinion No. 75-229 (1975) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 11, 1975

Section 421, supra, provides for the bank to have, upon approval by the State Banking Board and military installation commander, a detached facility on any military installation located in Oklahoma. … The term "branch" was interpreted in the case of Jackson v. First National Banks of Valdosta, 246 F. Supp. 134 (M.D. Ga. 1965) to mean the following: ". . .

Opinion No. 72-267 (1972) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 27, 1972

Wentz v. Thomas, 159 Okl. 124 , 15 P.2d 65 (1932). … McVicker v. Board of Commissioners of Caddo County, Oklahoma, Okl., 442 P.2d 297 . Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okl. 95 , 278 P. 311 (1929).

Opinion No. (1995)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 25, 1995

Hess v. Excise Board of McCurtain Co., 698 P.2d 930 (Okla. 1985).

Opinion No. 68-322 (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 1, 1969

Also, 59 O.S. 72 [ 59-72 ] (1968), provides: "The State Board of Barber Examiners shall admit any applicant to the regular examination for license to practice the trade of a barber within the meaning of this Act who is at … The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma in Sanders v. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Okl., 430 P.2d 789 (1967), held in the second paragraph of the syllabus: "2.

Opinion No. 78-205 (1978) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 7, 1978

The board of directors is appointed by state officers, and the people of the district have no voice in their selection . . . . … The purpose of the act is analogous to that of an irrigation district, and in Wood v. Imperial Irr.