Case law

Board of Com'rs of Sequoyah County v. Oklahoma Creosoted Lbr. & Piling Co.

181 Okla. 561 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 25, 1938

Board of Com’rs of Craig County, 53 Okla. 65 , 155 P. 215 ; Fairbanks Co. v. City of Sulphur, 62 Okla. 10 , 161 P. 811 ; Consolidated School District No. 2 v. Arlington School Supply Co., 148 Okla. 299 , 298 P. 1052 . … In City of Sulphur v. State ex rel.

Board of Trustees of the Fireman's Relief & Pension Fund v. Thomas

105 Okla. 52 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 9, 1924

Upon authority of Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okla. 469 , 106 Pac. 957 , the cause is reversed and remanded for new trial for failure of defendant in error to comply with Rule 7 of this court. By the Court: Tt is^so ordered.

In Re Application of Gruber

89 Okla. 148 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 10, 1923

State v. Williams, 40 S. C. 373, 19 S. E. 5 ; State v. Brown, 14 S. C. 380; Caldwell v. State (Wyo.) 78 Pac. 496 . … In Howe v.

St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Tillman County Excise Board

201 Okla. 624 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 19, 1949

ARNOLD, V. C. J. … Grubb v. Smiley, 142 Okla. 19 , 285 P. 38 ; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Haworth, 48 Okla. 132 , 149 P. 1086 ; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 35 Okla. 138 , 128 P. 685 ; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v.

Bd. of Directors of Harper Twp. v. Bd. of Com'rs.

134 Okla. 118 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 27, 1928

Thte trial court granted and issued its peremptory writ of mandamus to compel compliance on thle part of the township board. The township board superseded the judgment and perfected its appeal. … The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to dismiss the application undter the authority of Hudgins v. Foster, 131 Okla. 90 , 267 Pac. 645 .

Greenwood v. Wilkinson

124 Okla. 300 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 15, 1927

See, also, Hyde v. Ishmael, 42 Okla. 279 , 143 Pac. 1044 ; State ex rel. v. Brown, 92 Okla. 137 , 218 Pac. 816 ; Storm v. Garnet, 99 Okla 284, 227 Pac. 417 , and Foster v. Vickery, 111 Okla. 231 , 239 Pac. 141 . … Brown, supra, it was said: “Reasonable time means so much time as is necessary under th'e circumstances to do conveniently what the contract oor duty required should be done in a particular case.” In Foster v.

Jones v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Ass'n

453 F. Supp. 150 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 31, 1977

The decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, supra, cannot and must not be stretched to such lengths as to require every program, every rule, every facility and every policy in every school to be the same. … Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 , 89 S.Ct. 266, 270 , 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968); the right to equal education, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, supra; unequal treatment of male and female Army officers, Frontiero v.

Young v. Excise Board of Garfield County

165 Okla. 14 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 1, 1933

Lyall Young, against alleged illegal and excessive tax levies made by the excise board of Garfield county, Okla., for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, duly filed in the Court of Tax Review. … Coggeshall & Co. v. Smiley, 142 Okla. 8 , 285 P. 48 ; and Protest of Reed et al., 160 Okla. 3 , 15 P. (2d) 995 .

Continental Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

494 P.2d 650 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 29, 1972

In Exchange Oil Co. v. … Brown v. State Election Board, Okl., 369 P.2d 140 . Obviously the statutes under consideration need legislative clarification.

St. Louis-San Franciso Ry. Co. v. Craig County Excise Board

204 Okla. 419 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 1, 1951

It is provided an election may be called by the school board to be held in March at the same time the general school election is held, and it is provided that the county excise board of the school board may call a special … J., LUTTRELL, V. C. J., and DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.

Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Fain

34 Okla. 164 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 9, 1912

Co. v. Floyd, 38 Okla. 308 , 114 Pac. 359; Wagner v. Sattley Mfg. Co., 33 Okla. 53 , 99 Pac. 643 ; Crocker v. Shamleffer, 18 Okla. 407 , 90 Pac. 643 ; Board of Com’rs D. Co. v. Wright, 8 Okla. 190 , 57 Pac. 303 . … Meadors v. Johnson, 37 Okla. 543 ; Bettis v. Cargile et al., 33 Okla. 301 , 100 Pac. 436 ; Brown v. Territory, 15 Okla. 362 , 82 Pac. 647 ; Denny v. Wright et al., 13 Okla. 356 , 74 Pac. 104 .

Opinion No. (1979) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 11, 1979

Brown v. State Election Board, Okl., 369 P.2d 140 ; Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okl. 95 , 278 P. 311 ; National Surety Company v. Sand Springs State Bank, 74 Okl. 176 , 177 P. 574 . ". . . … The county commissioners are prohibited under Tulsa Exposition and Fair Corporation v. Board of County Commissioners, supra, from conferring any power not expressly authorized by statute.

Texas Co. v. State Board of Equalization

170 Okla. 519 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1935

Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization et al., cause No. 24271, this day decided ( 170 Okla. 517 , 41 P. [2d] 453 ), having disposed of this matter, the appeal is dismissed.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES

432 P.3d 1071 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 6, 2018

KEN YAZEL, TULSA COUNTY ASSESSOR, Respondent/Appellant, and TULSA COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, TULSA COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ROLL COLLECTIONS, and TULSA COUNTY TREASURER, Respondents. … BROWN Discussed 1999 OK 66, 988 P.2d 1268, 70 OBJ 2176, Soldan v. Stone Video Discussed Title 68.

Smith v. State Ex Rel. Board of Regents of Oklahoma State University

64 O.B.A.J. 144 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 19, 1993

Smith has moved to dismiss the appeal of Defendant-Appellant, Board of Regents of Oklahoma State University.

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 31, 2006

Brown v. City of Warr Acres, 946 P.2d 1140 , 1144 (Okla. 1997). … Brown v. City of Warr Acres, 946 P.2d 1140 , 1144 (Okla. 1997); Heisler v. Thomas, 651 P.2d 1330 , 1331 (Okla. 1982). 2.

Giles v. Dennison

15 Okla. 55 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 3, 1904

(Cason v. Lebanon, 55 N. E. 768; Laporte v. Gamewell Fire Alarm Teleg. Co., 35 L. R. 686, 45 N. E. 588 , and cases cited; Brown v. Corry, 175 Pa. St. 398.) … (Brown v. Corry, 175 Pa. 528 ; Grant v. Davenport, supra.) Under the contract in this case, however, the city 'hall is not to be erected by or for the city; but by Mr.

Ex Parte Barber

87 Okla. Crim. 201 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 21, 1948

See, also, Higgins v. Brown [ 1 Okla. Cr. 33 , 94 P. 703 ], and authorities therein cited. … See to the same effect, Higgins v. Brown, 1 Okla.

Opinion No. (1979)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 11, 1979

Brown v. State Election Board, Okla., 369 P.2d 140 ; Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okla. 95 , 278 P. 311 ; National Surety Company v. Sand Springs State Bank, 74 Okla. 176 , 177 P. 574 . ". . . … The county commissioners are prohibited under Tulsa Exposition and Fair Corporation v. Board of County Commissioners, supra, from conferring any power not expressly authorized by statute.

Opinion No. 71-416 (1972) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 15, 1972

Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okl. 95 , 278 P. 311 , applies the same rule to public officers generally. See also: Brown v. State Election Board, Okl., 369 P.2d 140 , and Tulsa Exposition and Fair Corporation v. … See also Hazlett v. Board of Commissioners of Muskogee County, 168 Okl. 290 , 32 P.2d 940 .