Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,251 results
0.36s
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 22, 1972
In Guthrie Daily Leader v. … Therefore, under the standard of Guthrie Daily Leader v. Cameron, supra, a member of the Board of Public Accountancy is a public officer for the purposes of 51 O.S. 6 [ 51-6 ] (1971). In Gibson v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 15, 2005
Spearman v. Williams, 415 P.2d 597 , 600 (Okla. 1966) (citations omitted). In Jackson v. … Trapp v. Cook Constr. Co., 105 P. 667 , 669 (Okla. 1909) (emphasis added); see also Oliver v. Okla.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 17, 1979
City of Ardmore, v. Excise Board of Carter County, Okl., 197 P.2d 961 (1948). The county excise board is not authorized to refuse to make appropriations required by law to be made. Excise Board of Creek County v. … City of Ardmore v. Excise Board of Carter County, 155 Okl. 126 , 8 P.2d 2 (1932).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 10, 1985
Marley v. Cannon , 618 P.2d 401 (Okla. 1980). We next examine the Administrative Procedures Act, supra, to ascertain if it grants the Board such authority. … Co. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 11, 1968
Herrin v. Arnold, 183 Okl. 392 , 82 P.2d 979 ;School District No. 24, et al. v. Hodge, 199 Okl. 81 , 133 P.2d 575 ; Hatfield v. Jimerson, Co. Supt., Okl., 365 P.2d 980 . … of the rules and regulations of the State Board of Education.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 31, 1978
In Zeilenga v. … Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Gardner, Okl., 353 P.2d 695 (1960). It is further reflected in State v. Oakes, Okl., 281 P.2d 749 , 753 (1955), citing Board of County Commissioners of Creek County v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 9, 1976
The doctrine of affinity is explained in the case of State v. Hooper, 140 Kan. 481 , 37 P.2d 52 , as follows: "Degrees of relationship by affinity are computed as are degrees of relationship by consanguinity. … Hettinger v. State Deposit Trust Co. of Baltimore, Md., 79 A. 205 . Accordingly, under the factual situation you outlined in your request, the two board members previously referred to are not related by affinity.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 24, 1994
The Oklahoma Supreme Court was persuaded by the decision in the Montana case of Board of Regents of Higher Education v. … The Baker court was also influenced by the Nebraska case of Board of Regents of University of Nebraska v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 29, 1980
In Ray v. … "In the case of Farley v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 28, 1974
See Mack v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 296 F. Supp. 1259 (1969), Amos Treat Company v. Securities Exchange Commission, 306 F.2d 260 (1962), Cinderella Career Finishing School, Inc., et al. v. … Federal Trade Commission, 425 F.2d 583 (1970), Trans-World Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 254 F.2d 90 (1958); American Cyanamide Company v. F.T.C., 363 F.2d 757 (1966); contra: Pangburn v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 16, 1991
THE TERM "PUBLIC OFFICE" WAS FIRST DEFINED IN THE CASE OF GUTHRIE DAILY LEADER V. … THIS WAS LATER FOLLOWED BY THE CASE OF OKLAHOMA CITY V.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 8, 2009
Jackson v. Freeman , 905 P.2d 217 , 221 (Okla. 1995). … Kelly v. Okla. Pardon Parole Bd. , 637 P.2d 858 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981) (citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Neb. Penal Corr. Complex , 442 U.S. 1 , 7 (1979)); Shabazz v. Keating , 977 P.2d 1089 , 1093 (Okla. 1999).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 19, 2006
Corp., 437 F.3d at 1367 ; CFSM Corp. v. Elbert McKee Co., 870 F. Supp. 819 , 833 (N.D. Ill. 1994). … See, e.g., Monroe v. Scofield, 135 F.2d 725 , 726 (10th Cir. 1943) ("A director is an officer of a corporation."); Cosgriff v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 11, 1996
XIII , § 8 (emphasis added). ¶ 4 In Board of Regents University of Oklahoma v. … XIII-B , § 2 Under the principles announced in Board of Regents University of Oklahoma v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 8, 2001
Board of Regents v. … In the first such case, Board of Regents v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 17, 1979
City of Ardmore, v. Excise Board of Carter County, Okla., 197 P.2d 961 (1948). The county excise board is not authorized to refuse to make appropriations required by law to be made. Excise Board of Creek County v. … City of Ardmore v. Excise Board of Carter County, 155 Okla. 126 , 8 P.2d 2 (1932).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 30, 1972
The Dahl case upheld an earlier decision, Wright v. … Such a case directly in point is Board of Education of County of Raleigh v. Commercial Casualty Insurance Company, 116 W. Va. 503 , 182 S.E. 87 (1935).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 1972
See Shaw v. … See Bostick v. Board of Commissioners, 19 Okl. 92 , 91 P. 1125 , Milan v. Smith-Mauer Brothers, 38 Okl. 328 , 133 P. 33 , State v. Moreland, 152 Okl. 37 , 3 P.2d 803 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 19, 1990
HOOVER V. BRACKEN ENERGIES. INC. V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, 723 F.2D 1488 (10TH CIR. 1983), CERT. DENIED, 105 S.CT. 93 ; CLINKENBEARD V. FRAZIER, 582 P.2D 413 (OKL. APP. 1978). … IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO USURP THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY IN INTERPRETING ITS STATUTE, ESPECIALLY WHEN MATTERS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 22, 1988
HESS V. EXCISE BOARD OF MCCURTAIN COUNTY, 698 P.2D 930 (OKLA. 1985). … SEE GOLDEN V. OKFUSKEE COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, 723 P.2D 982, 983 (OKLA. 1986); AND BOARD OF REGENTS OF OKLAHOMA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES V. UPDEQRAFF, 237 P.2D 131, 138 (OKLA. 1951).
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna