Case law

Opinion No. (1989)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 8, 1989

WHEN THE EXCISE BOARD UNDERTAKES TO REVIEW THE ESTIMATE OF NEEDS PURSUANT TO 68 O.S. 2487 (2) OR TO REVISE THE ESTIMATE OF NEEDS PURSUANT TO 68 O.S. 2487 (5), IT CLEARLY EXERCISES ITS LAWFUL DISCRETION. SEE ABEL V. … MADDEN, 738 P. 2D 1340 (OKL. 1987); ROGERS V. EXCISE BOARD OF GREER COUNTY, 701 P 2D 754 (OKL. 1984); AND SUMMEY V. TISDALE, 658 P. 2D 464 (OKL. 1982).

Gwaltney v. Gwaltney

2017 NCBC 12 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 8, 2017

Gwaltney v. Gwaltney, 2017 NCBC 12. … Id. at *16 (citing Maitland v. Int’l Registries, LLC, 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 70, at *4-5 (Del. Ch. June 6, 2008); Caplash v.

Opinion No. 71-104 (1971) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 20, 1971

Until such time as the oath of office is taken by the newly elected Board member the position will remain filled by the previous Board member. … Cotteral v. Barber, 34 Okl. 533 , 126 P. 211 (1912); Barrows v. Garvey, 67 Ariz. 202 , 193 P.2d 913 (1948); Lovell v. Democratic Central Committee, 327 S.W.2d 387 (Ark., 1959); Azevedo v.

Opinion No. 70-205 (1970) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 15, 1970

In consequence, the Order of the Board of County Commissioners is presently in effect. In Edge v. … In Butler v.

Opinion No. (1992)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 4, 1992

TEXAS OKLAHOMA EXPRESS V. SORENSON, 652 P.2D 285, 287; ROTRAMEL V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 546 P.2D 1015, 1017 (OKLA.1975). … 2) THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL BOARD HAVE THE EFFECT OF LAW.

Opinion No. 76-257 (1976) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 22, 1976

Concerning that language of Article XXIII, Section 10, the Court in Coyle v. … It is clear from the foregoing, that the Court in Coyle v.

Burks v. Neutzler

2 S.W.2d 416 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Feb 15, 1928

Brown, on or about the 9th day of November, A. … Kilgore et al. v. Northwest Texas Baptist Educational Soc. (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. 473 .

In re Conahan

51 A.3d 922 · Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2012

Pursuant to Article V, § 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Board is granted the authority to determine whether there is probable cause to file formal charges, and, when it concludes that probable … We find that the Board has established by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent was convicted of a felony which subjects him to discipline under Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. IV.

Opinion No. (1986)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 7, 1986

Absent a rule setting out the procedure to be used by the Board to change a beneficial use designation to a lower designation because of a mistake, the Board may not make such a change. See, Adams v. … At such time as the Board properly adopts such a rule or regulation, the Board may change a beneficial use designation to a less stringent one to correct a factual error. V .

DUVERGER, TONI v. SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.

2024 TN WC 79 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Nov 12, 2024

Dorsey v. Amazon, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 13, at *9-10 (May 14, 2015). While the nurse wrote that he discussed Ms. … See Smith v. Galloway Constr., Inc., 2019 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.

Jimenez, Noe v. Orlando Arauz

2023 TN WC 69 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Sep 28, 2023

. § 20-16-101 (2022); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 8.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If Mr. Arauz meets this burden, Mr. … See the Rules governing the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on the Bureau’s website If neither party timely files an appeal with the Appeals Board, the trial court’s Order will become final by operation of law thirty

In re Shaffer

885 A.2d 1153 · Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2005

Snyder (Case No. 2) 15 months Yanko v. Yanko (Case No. 3) 12 months Fair v. Hiles (Case No. 4) 34 months Dittmer v. Dittmer (Case No. 5) 34 months Walkowski v. Walkowski (Case No. 6) 21 months Peifer v. … Thus, the Board has established a violation of Canon 3A.(5). COUNT S: The Respondent violated Article V, § 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Opinion No. (1988)

Oklahoma 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).

Sanders, Andrea v. TJX Co., Inc.

2024 TN WC 42 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · May 24, 2024

Sanders must show she would likely prevail at trial. 2 Wilson v. Randstad, Inc., 2022 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 42, at *15 (Dec. 19, 2022). … The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted.

Opinion No. (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 6, 1969

In the case of City of Phoenix v. … For other cases adhering to the same general rule, see Hanson v. Hoffman, C.C.A. Okla. 1940, 113 F.2d 780 ; Thompson v. Board of Education, 57 N.J.L. 628 , 31 A. 168 ; Ex parte Beck, D.C. 245 F. 967 ; Kirby Lbr. Co. v.

Opinion No. (1989)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 26, 1989

State v. Tapp, 380 P.2D 260, 265 (Okla. 1963). See also Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission, 216 P. 917 (Okla. 1923); Board of Education of City of Okmulgee v. … State Board of Education, 200 P.2d 394 (Okla. 1948); Curtis v.

In Re Berkhimer

877 A.2d 579 · Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2005

We now adopt the definition in Commonwealth v. … For example, in Clark v.

Opinion No. (1998)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 20, 1998

Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Cloudman, 92 P.2d 837 , 840-41 (Okla. 1939). ¶ 5 Cloudman was affirmed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Independent School District No. 8 of Seiling v. … Rural Water District No. 3, Pushmataha County v.

Jones, William v. Transforce, Inc.

2024 TN WC 28 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Apr 5, 2024

Code Ann. § 50-6-102(12) (2023); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). … The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted.

In Re Davis

954 A.2d 118 · Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania · May 14, 2008

This action is taken pursuant to the authority of the Board under Article V, § 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which grants authority to the Board to determine whether there is probable cause to … Anthony, 504 Pa. 551, 558 , 475 A.2d 1303, 1307 (1984), see also Commonwealth v. Rosado, 418 Pa.Super. 196 , 613 A.2d 1244 (1992), aff'd, 545 Pa. 4 , 679 A.2d 756 (1996), Commonwealth v.