Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,251 results
1.09s
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 7, 1998
Co. v. … In Ivester v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 26, 1974
Such was an assumption by the Court in Massachusetts State Grange v. Benton, 10 F.2d 515 , aff'd 272 U.S. 526 , 71 L.Ed. 389 . … See Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry, 374 U.S. 424 , 10 L.Ed.2d 983 , 83 S.Ct. 1759 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 5, 1973
In interpreting a statute, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has stated in McVicker v. … Board of County Commissioners, 442 P.2d 297 (1968), that: ". . . if the wording of a provision of a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, its evident meaning must be accepted and there is no reason or justification for
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 25, 1976
In Oklahoma County v. … In the case of Board of Equalization v. Tulsa Pythian Benevolent Association, 195 Okl. 458 , 158 P.2d 904 , the Court also followed the Oklahoma County v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 12, 1976
In Schrom v. … In a recent decision of State Board of Public Affairs v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 2, 1999
State v. Breckinridge, 126 P. 806 , 810 (Okla. 1912) ( citing Knight v. Trigg, 100 P. 1060 (Idaho 1909); and State v. City of Butte, 109 P. 710 (Mont. 1910)). … See Coyle v. Smith, 113 P. 944 , 947 (1911), and A.G. Opin. 76-257.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 31, 1978
first directed to 11 O.S. 571 [11-571] (1971), which provides, in pertinent part: " (c) In cities and towns with a population of five thousand (5,000) or less, according to the last Federal Decennial Census, the governing board … To this same effect see Detroit Police Officers Association v. City of Detroit, 385 Mich. 519 , 190 N.W.2d 97 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 11, 1971
Health shall issue and renew the licenses for the operation of nursing homes, rest homes, or specialized homes which are found to comply with the provisions of this Article, and standards, rules and regulations of the State Board … In Stephenson, et al. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 27, 1978
For eligible persons, certain services are provided directly through the pilot multi-purpose service center established pursuant to 70 O.S. 14 -116 [ 70-14-116 ] (1978), this being a center set up by the State Board of Vocational … Haines v. State, Okl. Cr., 275 P.2d 347 (1954); Davis v. State, Okl. Cr., 300 P.2d 1000 (1956) .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 19, 1979
See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972) and Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … Benson v. Blair, Okla., 515 P.2d 1363 (1973).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 9, 2000
Roach v. Atlas Life Ins. … Boice v. State, 473 P.2d 241 , 245 (Okla. 1970).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 9, 2008
Id. at 221 ; see Smith v. … Pipkin v. Pipkin , 393 P.2d 534 , 537 (Okla. 1964); Finley v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 9, 1993
STATE V. HUMPHREY, 620 P.2D 408 (OKL.CR.1980). OF COURSE, IT IS ALWAYS NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN AND GIVE EFFECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT EXPRESSED IN A STATUTE. HESS V. … EXCISE BOARD OF MCCURTAIN COUNTY, 698 P.2D 930 (OKLA.1985). AS RECENTLY NOTED IN A. G.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 5, 1979
Subsequently, in Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County v. … For the most recent pronouncements, see Lewis v. Montgomery Ward (Okla., 1962) 368 P.2d 995 , 997 ; Bilbrey v. Chastain (Okla., 1969) 459 P.2d 608 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 6, 1980
In North v. … Bell v. Crum, 188 Okla. 67 , 106 P.2d 518 (1940); Lowden v. Okla. Co. Excise Board, 186 Okla. 706 , 100 P.2d 448 (1940)."
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 5, 1979
Subsequently, in Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County v. … For the most recent pronouncements, see Lewis v. Montgomery Ward (Okl., 1962) 368 P.2d 995 , 997 ; Bilbrey v. Chastain (Okl., 1969) 459 P.2d 608 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 23, 1998
No. 100-446, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1988) (emphasis added). ¶ 8 In California v. … In deciding whether the State of California could enforce its bingo laws on Indian land, the United States Supreme Court, referring to its prior decision in Bryan v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 21, 1979
As recognized in Nucholls v. … Board of Adjustment of City of Tulsa, Okla., 560 P.2d 556 (1976) the validity of.zoning regulations may not exceed the power delegated by statute and such use of excessive power is invalid and void.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 11, 1971
In the case of Burdett v. … In the case of Meinders v. Board of Education of Wynnewood School District I-38, Okl., 344 P.2d 572 , on page 573, the Court quoted the case of Skelly Oil Company v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 26, 1974
authorized by Article X, Section 38, provides in pertinent part as follows: "SECTION 8 ......... that not to exceed Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) of the amount appropriated by this section be allocated to the Board … workmen's compensation can be reasonably implied as incident to the provision's stated purpose of "remodeling, modernizing and repairing any and all existing buildings and capital improvements. . . . " In Carter Oil Co. v.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna