Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,251 results
0.71s
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 9, 1999
See, e.g., City of Birmingham v. Hawkins, 94 So. 62 , 65 (Ala. 1922); Nichols v. Galveston County, 228 S.W. 547 , 548 (Tex. 1921); and Chemical Bank Trust Co. v. Oakland County, 251 N.W. 395 , 400 (Mich. 1933). … See Oklahoma State Election Board v. Coats, 610 P.2d 776 , 778-79 (Okla. 1980).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 13, 1973
In Pierce v. … The Supreme Court of Kansas considered a similar question in Crevhon, et al. v. Board of Education of City of Parsons, 163 P. 145 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 15, 1978
No Board, commission, department, program or office whose expenditure of funds for salaries and wages has been limited by legislative action shall exceed the amount unless approval is first granted by the Board." … However, to read the above subsection as authority for powers not specifically enumerated in Section 3603 would be contrary to a basic rule of statutory construction found in American First Title and Trust Company v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 5, 1969
We have checked other provisions of law and find no authority for the county or its governing board, the Board of County Commissioners, to expend county funds for the purpose of building a retention dam for a non-profit water … In the case of Allen V.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 24, 1971
Additionally the Board of County Commissioners may enter into such contract only if prior to the passage of Section 371, the Board had attempted to contract for such service. … The Court has held in State v. Hunt, Okl., 286 P.2d 1088 (1955) in construing the word "shall": ". . .In the construction of statutes, the word `shall' is usually given its common meaning of `must' . . ."
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 8, 1975
The Board shall consider a report of the circumstances of the case to be presented by a hearing examiner appointed by the Board. … City of Tulsa v. Goins, Okl., 437 P.2d 257 259 (1967). Therefore, the hearing examiner's report is by law one basis of the Board's final decision in a case, and is a proper part of the record.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 13, 1975
In Article V , Section 36 of the Oklahoma Constitution, legislative authority is set forth as follows: "The authority of the legislature shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, and any specific grant of authority … Cr., 87 P.2d 1106 (1939); Coburn v. Schroeder, Okl. Cr., 112 P.2d 191 (1941) and Ex parte Barrett, Okl. Cr., 132 P.2d 657 (1942). Also pertinent to this question is the holding in Petition of Leaser, Okl.
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 · Mar 30, 1973
The Appellate Court of Illinois in the case of Elder v. … A similar California statute was construed in the case of Brightman v. Board of Education of City of Berkeley, 41 P.2d 346 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 23, 1988
The degree of authority granted to these various other boards of regents varies tremendously from board to board, even as among the constitutionally authorized boards, and no attempt is made here to examine such differences … Draper v. State Board of Equalization, 414 P.2d 276 (Okla. 1966). Legislative silence, when it has authority to speak, may be considered as giving rise to an implication of legislative intent. City of Duncan 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 · Jun 12, 1997
The purpose of the activity funds must be approved and regulated by the board. … Public Service Company of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 842 P.2d 750 , 752 (Okla. 1992). It is presumed that the Legislature, in the statute, said what it meant and meant what it said. Darnell v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 6, 1991
WHEN THERE IS AN ELECTION OF THE TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND NEW MEMBERS WERE ELECTED BUT BEFORE THE NEW BOARD TAKES THEIR OFFICE THERE IS A RESIGNATION OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS, MAY THE OLD BOARD FILL THE VACANCY? … REFERENCING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OPINION IN UNITED STATES V.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 28, 1971
Numerous court decisions in this state have announced the doctrine that the Boards of County Commissioners are limited to powers specifically authorized to them. In Lairmore, et al, v. … In another case, Allen et al v. Board of Commissioners of Pittsburg County, 28 Okl. 778 , 116 P. 175 , later upheld in Spann et al v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 28, 2005
Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust Sav. Ass'n, 322 F.3d 1039 , 1042 (9th Cir. 2002). ¶ 6 An interest rate swap is fully described in Thrifty Oil Co. v. … Bd. of Educ. v. Cloudman, 92 P.2d 837 , 841 (Okla. 1939). ¶ 18 Two Oklahoma cases are instructive in analyzing powers of school districts. In Cloudman , the Oklahoma Supreme Court clarified the powers of school boards.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 16, 1976
Use of the word "shall" is equivalent to the word "must" and leaves the Board no discretion to avoid following this statute. State v. Jennings, Okl., 463 P.2d 690 , 692 (1970); Ogden v. … In Marcus v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 18, 2002
Bliss Hotel Co. v. Thompson, 378 P.2d 319 , 321 (Okla. 1962). … a written report to the board.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 2, 1994
GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY V. STATE, 645 P.2D 1011 (OKLA.1982). IN ADDITION, CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN ABSURDITY MUST BE AVOIDED AND A RATIONALE CONSTRUCTION MUST BE EMPLOYED. LEDBETTER V. … TAYLOR V. SPECIAL INDEMNITY FUND, 804 P.2D 431, 432 (OKLA.1990).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 17, 1980
In Opinion 78-206 a rural water district was deemed to be a public agency, but the positions on the board were not interpreted as constituting a public office. State v. … To be a public officer the criteria set forth in Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Company, 178 Okl. 212 , 62 P.2d 94 (1936) must be met.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 5, 1992
IS THERE A PROHIBITION OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR VERD ARK CA BOARD MEMBERS TO SERVE AS EODD BOARD MEMBERS OR OFFICERS? … CARTWRIGHT V. GEORGIA PACIFIC CORP., 663 P.2D 718 (OKLA.1982).
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna