Case law

Opinion No. 69-175 (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 24, 1969

Board of Trustees of Police Pension and Retirement System v.

Opinion No. 75-214 (1975) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 16, 1975

official and having completed six (6) years or more of credited service as an elected state official and having paid to the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System sufficient contributions which shall be determined by the Board … However, under circumstances similar to those stated in your question, the Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts, in the case of O'Connor v.

Opinion No. (1991) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 10, 1991

RUSSELL PETROLEUM COMPANY V. WALKER, 19 P.2D 582, 587 (OKLA. 1933). IN THE RUSSELL CASE, THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT GOVERNOR WILLIAM H. … ALSO SEE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION NO. 77-191, WHICH HELD THAT THE OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD, BY VIRTUE OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER, CANNOT GAIN NEW POWER AND AUTHORITY.

Opinion No. 69-140 (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 3, 1969

In Erwin v. … Weinberg v. Baltimore and A. R. Company, 200 Md. 160 , 88 A.2d 575 , 577 (1962). It is assumed that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the word used. Richards v.

Opinion No. (2001)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 2, 2001

See Adams v. Prof. Practices Comm'n, 524 P.2d 932 , 934 (Okla. 1974). … "In sum, rules are agency directives of general applicability which are designed to apply across the board to all regulated entities. " Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Okla. Corp.

Opinion No. 69-283 (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 20, 1969

Oliver v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Okl. 359 P.2d 183 . In the syllabus of Seventeen Hundred Peoria, Inc., v.

Opinion No. (1987) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 13, 1987

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ANY COUNTY SHALL, BY AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNING BODY OF A MUNICIPALITY, . . . … MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF TERRY V. EDGIN, 561 P.2d 60 (OKL. 1977), EXPRESSLY AFFIRMED A.G. OPIN. NO. 63-159 UPON WHICH A.G. OPIN. NO. 71-294 HAD RELIED. SO, THERE IS NOT ONLY AN A.G.

Opinion No. 73-310 (1974) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 13, 1974

Mid-Continent Pipeline Co. v. Stephens County, Ok;l., 312 P.2d 883 (1957). … See Development Industries Inc. v. City of Norman, Okl., 412 P.2d 953 (1966). See also Application of Reynolds, Okl. Cr., 328 P.2d 441 (1958).

Opinion No. 70-273 (1970) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 4, 1970

Such compensation . . . shall be ascertained by a board of commissioners of not less than three freeholders . . . . … Co. v. Oliver, 17 Okl. 589 , 87 P. 423 (1906); Oklahoma City v. Wells, 185 Okl. 369 , 91 P.2d 1077 (1939); Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro, 200 Okl. 157 , 201 P.2d 225 (1947); Cities Service Gas Co. v.

Opinion No. (2000)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 15, 2000

V , § 55 , art. … V , § 55 , or any law specific to that appropriation. 2 A unique executive-legislative entity, the Contingency Review Board is also empowered to reallocate amounts appropriated for wages and salaries during emergencies.

Opinion No. (1985)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 16, 1985

For example, the Attorney General noted that in Sassone v. … In Cox v.

Opinion No. 70-131 (1970) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 13, 1970

"Eighty per cent (80%) of all sums held by the State Treasurer to the credit of the Special Indemnity Fund may by order of the Commissioner of the State Insurance Fund, with the approval of the Board of Managers of the State … In Flecz v. Harmstad, 304 Pa. 302 , 155 A. 875 , 77 A.L.R. 875 , it was stated: "The word 'money' is popularly and correctly used as indicating property of every description."

Opinion No. 72-258 (1972) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 27, 1972

The general rule in regard to whether a statute acts retrospectively or not is set forth in State v. … This rule was recently upheld and followed in the case of Sunray DX Oil Company v.

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Brenda Stanley, Oklahoma State Senate, District 42

2024 OK AG 8 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 4, 2024

State v. Humphrey, , ¶ 3, , 409. As a result, article X, section 11 of the Oklahoma Constitution must be strictly construed and not expanded. … State v. West , , . Black's Law Dictionary defines perquisite as "a privilege or benefit given in addition to one's salary or regular wages. Often shortened to perk ."

Opinion No. 78-181 (1978) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 1, 1978

Midwest City v. Harris, Okl., 561 P.2d 1357 (1977). That intent is ascertained from an examination of the language of the act as a whole in light of its general purpose and object. Adams v. … Johnson v. Ward, Okl., 541 P.2d 182 (1975).

Opinion No. (2004)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 30, 2004

Petrovics v. Brown, 235 P.2d 708 , 709 (Okla. 1951). ¶ 3 The policy in favor of redemption is not limited to the actual owner but can extend to the equitable owner too. … Scales v. Locke, 221 P. 737 , 737-38 (Okla. 1923) (quoting Byington v. Rider, 9 Iowa 566 (Iowa 1859)).

Opinion No. (1996)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 8, 1996

To similar effect, see Decker v. … As to bonds issued by the board of education such bonds must be approved by election of the school district upon the question of issuing such bonds; 2.

Opinion No. 72-164 (1972) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 30, 1972

Parker v. State, 424 P.2d 997 (Okl.Cr. 1967). … See The State Board of Dispensing Optitions v. Schwab, 380 P.2d 784 (Ariz. 1963).

Opinion No. (1985)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 19, 1985

Hughes Drilling Co. v. Morgan , 648 P.2d 32 (Okla. 1982). … The cost of said certificate and lapel pin shall be reimbursed to the Committee by the agency, board, commission, or office that made the nomination ." (Emphasis added).

Opinion No. 71-208 (1971) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 13, 1971

When a Commission is created by statute, its powers are limited to those granted by the applicable statute, which may not be enlarged by the Board itself. Boydston v. State, 277 P.2d 138 .