Case law

Opinion No. (1989)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 30, 1989

V. OKLA. COUNTY BD. OF TAX-ROLL CORRECTIONS, 578 P.2D 1200 (OKLA. 1978). … THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT, IN MOORE-NORMAN AREA VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 V. BD.

Steak & Ale Restaurants of America v. Commonwealth

70 Pa. D. & C.2d 582 · Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board · Sep 17, 1974

in Commonwealth v. … But, even if appellant’s “cause of action” did not arise until after the appeal period for appeals from board orders had expired, it is clear that the previous ad *593 judication of the board in Commonwealth v.

Southwest Nat. Bank v. Employers' Indemnity Corp.

12 S.W.2d 189 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Jan 2, 1929

In Martin-Brown Co. v. … Martin-Brown Oo. v. Auld, supra; Kelsay Lbr. Co. v. Rot-sky (Tex. Civ. App.) 178 S. W. 837 . 3.

Opinion No. (1997)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 14, 1997

Moss v. City of Oklahoma City, 897 P.2d 280 , 286 (Okla. 1995). Intent is ascertained from the act as a whole in light of its general purpose and object. City of Bethany v. … Curtis v. Board of Education of Sayre Public Schools, 914 P.2d 656 , 659 (Okla. 1995). The Legislature is presumed not to have done a vain and useless act.

Opinion No. (1991) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 24, 1991

YOUR SECOND QUESTION ASKS WHETHER A COUNTY EXCISE BOARD IS REQUIRED TO APPROVE A 10 MILL LEVY AS BUDGETED FOR THE COUNTY BY THE COUNTY BUDGET BOARD. … THE NEW LAW EMBODIES THE PRIOR LAW WHICH HELD THAT APPROPRIATIONS INCURRED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE APPROPRIATION WAS MADE ARE VOID (SEE (BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY V.

Jones, Anthony v. Trojan Labor of Nashville, LLC

2016 TN WC 82 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Apr 13, 2016

See Silas v. Brock Services, No. 2014-02-0013, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. 35, at *9 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Oct. 2, 2015). Mr. … See Silas v. Brock Services, No. 2014-02-0013, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 35, at *11-12 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd.

Opinion No. (2001)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 8, 2001

Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Moss, 509 P.2d 666 , 668 (Okla. 1973) (quoting Boydston v. … Ethics Comm'n v. Keating, 958 P.2d 1250 , 1256 (Okla. 1998) (citing City of Duncan v. Bingham, 394 P.2d 456 , 459-60 (Okla. 1964)).

Fife v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2016 Ohio 1279 · Ohio Court of Claims · Feb 24, 2016

Brown v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. … Brown at ¶ 16.

Opinion No. (1991) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 2, 1991

ITS GOVERNING BOARD SHALL BE A BOARD OF EDUCATION CONSISTING OF NOT LESS THAN FIVE (5) NOR MORE THAN (7) MEMBERS ELECTED IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE BOARD OF VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION. … OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION V. DAXON, 607 P.2D 683 (OKLA. 1980).

Opinion No. (1999)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 10, 1999

Midwest City v. … City of Duncan v. Bingham, 394 P.2d 456 , 460 (Okla. 1964).

Opinion No. 79-008 (1979) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 15, 1979

Inasmuch as members of a board of education customarily assume office by the electoral process, it is clear that none serve by con tract. The leading case defining a public officer is State v. Sowards, 64 Okl. … See also Farley v. Bd. of Education of City of Perry, 62 Okl. 181 , 162 P. 797 (1917). It is clear under the foregoing authority that a member of a school board or board of education is an "officer."

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Stiles

7 Mills Surr. 290 · New York Surrogate's Court · Oct 15, 1909

Snyder, who in fact furnished the board, was only by affinity; and, under the doctrine of Gallagher v. Vought, 8 Hun, 87 , was not of itself sufficient to repel an implication of agreement to pay for the board. … Pellettreau v. Smith, 30 Barb. 494 ; Matter of Franklin, 26 Misc. Rep. 107 ; Kohler v. Knapp, 1 Bradf. 241 ; Haven v. Haven, 1 Redf. 374 .

Opinion No. (2003)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 7, 2003

."); State v. … Wimberly v.

Opinion No. (1979)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 15, 1979

Inasmuch as members of a board of education customarily assume office by the electoral process, it is clear that none serve by con tract. The leading case defining a public officer is State v. Sowards, 64 Okla. … See also Farley v. Bd. of Education of City of Perry, 62 Okla. 181 , 162 P. 797 (1917). It is clear under the foregoing authority that a member of a school board or board of education is an "officer."

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Ezell

14 S.W.2d 1018 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Mar 20, 1929

Ezell, Jr., Employee,' v. … Clayton v. Hurt, 88 Tex. 595 , 32 S. W. 876 ; Evans v. McKay (Tex. Civ. App.) 212 S. W. 680 ; 33 C. J. “Judgments,” § 39.

Ringgold v. Graham

13 S.W.2d 355 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Feb 13, 1929

Daniels v. Larendon, 49 Tex. 216 ; Labadie v. Dean, 47 Tex. 90 ; Gordon v. Robertson, 26 Ga. 410 ; Benson v. Shines, 107 Ga. 406 , 33 S. E. 439 ; Griswold v. Thornton, 129 Ala. 454 , 30 So. 717 . … J. § 1152; Gordon v. Camp, 2 Fla. 23 ; Sanders v. Mathewson, 121 Ga. 302 , 48 S. E. 946 ; Beckwith v. Kansas City & O. R. Co., 28 Kan. 485 ; Alvord & Sons v. Mallory & Sons, 10 Ky. Law Rep. 80 ; Brown v. Brown, 12 S.

Miles, DeAndre v. Nike Inc. Footwear

2025 TN WC App. 46 · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · Sep 16, 2025

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD DeAndre Miles Docket No. 2023-08-8556 v. … Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010).

Opinion No. (1999)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 29, 1999

Oklahoma Journal Publishing Company v. Oklahoma City, 620 P.2d 452 , 454 (Okl.Ct.App. 1980). … City of Duncan v. Bingham, 394 P. 2d 456 , 460 (Okla. 1964).

ELSBERRY, DEXTER M. v. FEDEX

2026 TN WC 40 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Apr 17, 2026

Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2025); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). To recover medical benefits, Mr. … The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted.

Bailey v. Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities

2023 Ohio 3144 · Ohio Court of Claims · Aug 4, 2023

Reister v. Gardner, 164 Ohio St.3d 546, 2020-Ohio-5484, 174 N.E.3d 713, ¶ 17. “Therefore, a Civ.R. 12(C) motion ‘tests the allegations of the complaint and presents a question of law.’” Jackson v. … Franklin No. 19AP-621, 2020-Ohio-1518, ¶ 11, quoting Zhelezny v. Olesh, 10th Dist.