Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,251 results
1.13s
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 7, 1975
the board? … These opinions espouse the intent of 21 O.S. 481 [ 21-481 ] (1971) et seq. as stated in Reddell v. State, 14 Okl. Cr. 199 , 170 P. 273 (1918), wherein the Court said: ". . .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 25, 1973
In the case of State v. … Roberts v. Board of Trustees of Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund of Leedy, Oklahoma, 292 P.2d 408 (Okla. 1956).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 22, 1973
See also Lairmore v. Board of Commissioners of Okmulgee County, 200 Okl. 436 , 195 P.2d 762 and Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okl. 95 , 278 P. 311 . … See also Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa v. Guaranty Loan and Investment Corporation of Tulsa, Inc., 497 P.2d 423 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 22, 1980
Woods v. Board of Equalization, Okla., 517 P.2d 430 (1973); Bretts v. Commissioner of Land Office, 17 Okla. 64 , 110 P. 766 (1910). … The Supreme Court in Woods v. State Board of Equalization, supra, expressly held that federal revenue sharing funds were subject to the state's appropriation process.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 14, 1972
"Any person becoming a member of one of said boards in any county shall thereby become a member of the other board for that county, so that the membership of each board of equalization and excise board shall coincide and … Spearman v. Williams, Okl., 415 P.2d 597 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 11, 1974
In Board of Adjustment v. Board of Education, Okl., 326 P.2d 800 , the Oklahoma City Board of Education applied for a variance from zoning regulations so that they could establish a parking lot for public school. … The Board of Adjustment denied the requested variance and the District Court reversed the Board of Adjustment and granted the requested variance.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 16, 1998
¶ 1 Your questions deal with the authority of the Oklahoma Crime Victims Compensation Board ("the Victims Board") to expend money. … Marley v. Cannon, 618 P.2d 401 , 405 (Okla. 1980) (citations omitted). ¶ 4 Your first question asks whether there are any limitations on the use of monies collected pursuant to the Act.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 23, 1992
V. FORTINBERRY CO., 207 P.2D 301, 304 (OKLA. 1949). … UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 2 O.S. 96 , THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY FREE FAIR BOARDS OR ASSOCIATIONS, WHILE HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO "EXPEND FUNDS OF THE COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION," ARE ADMONISHED THAT "IN NO CASE SHALL THE
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 19, 2005
Background Of The Statutory Duties Of The Oklahoma Board Of Dentistry ¶ 1 The Oklahoma Board of Dentistry ("Board") was created by the Legislature pursuant to Article V , Section 39 of the Oklahoma Constitution. … V.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 21, 1980
Wallace v. … Indeed, Section 34 provides that the State Board shall maintain separate accounts not only for each municipality, but also for "each firefighter". Moran v. State ex rel.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 28, 1978
At what point in time would such member cease to be a voting member of the Board? … In the case of Coyle v. Smith, 28 Okl. 121 , 113 P. 944 (1911), the Oklahoma Supreme Court construed Article XXIII, Section 10.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 22, 1972
The Attorney General is in receipt of your letter wherein you state in pertinent part: "The Love County Health Center is fully constructed and is being operated by the Board of Controls subject to the authority of the Board … In the case of In re Arbuckle Conservancy District v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 28, 1979
Article V , Section 57 ? … See Caldwell v. Oldfield, 98 P. 925 and Caldwell v. Hooker, 98 P. 964 ."
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 13, 1968
Tharel v. Board of County Com'rs of Creek County, 188 Okl. 184 , 107 P.2d 542 , determines the answer to your first question. … We feel that it is appropriate — though not necessary in answering your specific questions to call your attention to certain dicta in the case of Headley v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 10, 1971
Vance, 35 P.2d 896 (Okl. 1934); Wilson v. Moran, 197 P. 1051 (Okl. 1921). Or, stated differently, he who asserts an affirmative has the burden of proving it. Trademen's National Bank of Oklahoma City v. … The case of Cupps, Appellee v. City of Toledo, et al., Appellants, 18 Ohio Opinions 2nd Series 82 (Ohio 1961) arrives at the same conclusion under like reasoning.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 28, 1978
Railroad Company v. State, 119 P. 117 (1911). Statutes must be reasonably and sensibly construed in preference to construction which renders all or part of the statutes useless. Tannehill v. … It is also apparent that with the authority vested in said Board by the Legislature, by virtue of 82 O.S. 934 [82-934](c), it is incumbent upon the Board to take action when it discovers that pollution abatement programs
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 5, 1969
In the case of Hewitt v. … Also in Connally v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 14, 1970
That is to say, Chase v. … Both Murray v. State, supra, and Chase v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 21, 1971
In Boardman v. … In addition, the case of Boardman v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 2, 1975
Hisel v. State, Okl., 264 P.2d 375 (1953). In McVicker v. … In Tobin v.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna