Case law

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 8, 1971

In the case of Phillips v. H. A. … See also: Gray v. Gray, Okl., 459 P.2d 181 . Further, in the case of State of Oklahoma v.

Opinion No. (1988)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 2, 1988

Tulsa Exposition and Fair Corp. v. Board of County Com'rs of Tulsa County, 468 P.2d 501 (Okla. 1970). … employees unless such salary increases would cause the Board's budget to exceed its estimated revenues or unless the Board's "work program" failed sufficiently to show "the purposes for which the money is to be expended.

Opinion No. (2002)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 13, 2002

No. 2 v. … In Beattie v. State ex rel.

Opinion No. (1993)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 3, 1993

AMF Tubescope Co. v. … C H Transportation Co. v.

Opinion No. (1993)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 6, 1993

Spiva v. State, 584 P.2d 1355 (Okl.Cr. 1978). Further, it is within legislative authority to define words in statutes. Oliver v. City of Tulsa, 654 P.2d 607 (Okla. 1982). … Democratic Party of Oklahoma v. Estep, 652 P.2d 271 (Okla. 1982).

Opinion No. 76-324 (1976) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 5, 1976

In the case of City of Danville v. Chesapeake and O. Ry. Co., 34 F. Supp. 620 , 637 (D.C. … Co. v. Kelly, 36 S.Ct. 630 , 241 U.S. 485 , 60 L.Ed. 1117 (1915), and Gelco Builders and Burjay Construction Corp. v. Simpson Factors Corp., 301 N.Y.S.2d 728 , 60 Misc. 2 nd 492 (1969).

Opinion No. (1991)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 24, 1991

The term office was interpreted in Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Company, 62 P.2d 94 (Okla. 1936). … , cannot be interpreted to make any position created by the Board of OIFA an "office" for the purposes of Oklahoma's dual-office holding prohibition.

Opinion No. (1989)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 30, 1989

See e.g., AMF Tubescope Co. v. Hatchel, 547 P.2d 374 , 379 (Okla. 1976); Carlile v. … In Oklahoma Wildlife Federation, Inc. v.

Opinion No. (2006)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 19, 2006

In Guthrie Daily Leader v. … That Opinion involved the question of whether a city council member could serve on the Grand River Dam Authority Board of Directors, a state agency. Id. at 154.

Opinion No. (2003)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 4, 2003

governing board." 20 O.S. … Id. ¶ 3 In Court Fund of Tulsa County v.

Opinion No. (1998)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 11, 1998

Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County v. … State v. Garrison, 348 P.2d 859 , 862 (Okla. 1959). Opinion 86-131 cited an Indiana case, Steup v.

Opinion No. (1999)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 23, 1999

Clifton v. Clifton, 801 P.2d 693 , 696 (Okla. 1990). … Clifton v. Clifton, 801 P.2d 693 (Okla. 1990).

Opinion No. 80-159 (1980) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 24, 1980

Other withdrawals and deposits shall be made according to rules and regulations established by the Board of Corrections." … State Board of Charities and Corrections v. Harp, 190 Ky. 147 , 227 S.W. 282 (1920).

Opinion No. 73-222 (1973) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 18, 1973

[ 59-805 ] (1971), and is otherwise qualified and passes the examination given by the Oklahoma State Board of Electrology, is entitled to a license to practice electrology in Oklahoma. … Under the rule of statutory construction announced in McVicker v.

Opinion No. 80-114 (1980) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 6, 1980

In construing the language of limitation in Article X, Section 26, the Supreme Court said in News Dispatch Printing Audit Co. v. … The limitations of Article X, Section 26 are more forcefully phrased in Boardman Co. v.

Opinion No. 70-190 (1970) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 26, 1970

In the case of Baker v. … The universal rule was well established in the case of Ward v.

Opinion No. 72-110 (1972) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 17, 1972

Oklahoma has adopted this rule; one such case is State v. … board.

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 6, 1974

THE LANGUAGE OF 19 O.S. 410 .8 [ 19-410.8 ] CONTEMPLATES A PAYMENT TO THE SHERIFF TO VENDORS FOR ITEMS USED IN BOARDING PRISONERS AND SUBSEQUENT REIMBURSEMENT BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS UPON SUBMISSION OF A PROPER … TO THAT EXTENT, THE LEGISLATIVE ABROGATES THE LANGUAGE OF `BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TULSA COUNTY V. MARS, SHERIFF', RELATING TO PROFITS REALIZED BY THE SHERIFF.

Opinion No. 69-106 (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 10, 1969

O.S.L. 1963, ch. 325 , Art. 2, Section 226 ( 63 O.S. 1 -226 [ 63-1-226 ] (1968)): "The County Board of Health shall annually file with the county excise board an estimate of needs for the operation or maintenance of the County … See Madeley v. Trustees of Conroe Independent School Dist. Tex., 130 S.W.2d 929 (1939).

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 10, 1966

THAT IS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE RULING IN BOWES V. … THE BOARD'S DISCRETION SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED HEREIN, AND IN THE ATTACHED OPINIONS.