Case law

Sewer Improvement Dist. No. 1 v. Foster

205 Okla. 201 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 10, 1951

Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 167 , 41 L. Ed. 369, 391 , 17 S. Ct. 56 ; Embree v. Kansas City & L. B. Road Dist., 240 U. S. 242, 247 , 60 L. Ed 624, 627, 36 S. Ct. 317 ; Browning v. Hooper, 269 U. … Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester, supra; Hancock v. Muskogee, 250 U. S. 454, 459 , 63 L. Ed. 1081, 1084 , 39 S. Ct. Rep. 528 ; Withnell v. Ruecking Constr. Co., 249 U. S. 63, 69 , 63 L. Ed. 479, 483 , 39 S. Ct.

City of Cherokee v. Tatro

636 P.2d 337 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 3, 1981

Tatro applied to the local board of adjustment for a variance pursuant to 11 O.S.Supp.1978, §§ 44-101 through 44-110, and, upon hearing, the board of adjustment denied his application for a variance. … See McGrath v. Brown, 190 Okl. 144 , 120 P.2d 624 (1941); Oklahoma City v. Harris, 191 Okl. 125 , 126 P.2d 988 (1941); Board of Adjustment of Oklahoma City v. Shanbour, Okl., 435 P.2d 569 (1968); O’Rourke v.

Application of Volunteers of America

749 P.2d 549 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 2, 1988

In cases involving special exceptions as well as variances, a presumption of correctness exists in favor of the Board’s rulings. See, e.g., Vinson v. Medley, Okl., 737 P.2d 932 (1987); Bailey v. … Brown v. Fraser, Okl., 467 P.2d 464, 467 (1970); Twist v. Kay, Okl., 434 P.2d 180, 184 (1967); Application of Shadid, 205 Okl. 462 , 238 P.2d 794, 797 (1951); Thompson v.

Howard v. Arkansaw

59 Okla. 206 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 20, 1916

Lynch et al., 7 Okla. 650, 653, 656 , 56 Pac. 1082 ; Rhyne v. Manchester Assurance Co., 14 Okla. 555 , 78 Pac. 558 ; Brown on Jurisdiction, sec. 10. … Co. v. Beale, 4 Okla. 712 , 47 Pac. 481 ; Blanchard v. United States, 6 Okla. 587 , 52 Pac. 736 ; Vandervoort v. Board of Comr’s, 8 Okla. 227 , 57 Pac. 167 ; Hoffman v.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Pioneer Area Vocational-Technical School, Vo-Tech District No. 13

64 O.B.A.J. 1603 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 1993

It cites Torres v. … Conner v.

Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln County v. Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System

405 P.2d 68 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 13, 1965

Reliance is had upon the following authorities: Board of Commissioners of Tulsa County v. Summers, 181 Okl. 312 , 73 P.2d 409 ; Independent School Dist. No. 1, McIntosh County v. P. A. … In Wilson v.

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Excise Board of Pottawatomie County

167 Okla. 326 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1934

Neither the excise board nor the Court of Tax Review was authorized to say that the fund could be considered as a part of the current expense fund of the city. … S. 1931, relied on by the excise board as its authority for the appropriation in question, and we find nothing therein authorizing such a use of the library fund.

Toohey v. Town of Canton

177 Okla. 426 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 8, 1936

Said act specifically authorized the county election boards to establish voting precincts in incorporated towns without regard to ward lines. … Dunegan v. Town of Red Rock, 58 Okla. 218 , 158 P. 1170 ; Goar v. Brown, 82 Okla. 227 , 200 P. 156 .

Kating v. City of Pryor Ex Rel. Municipal Utility Board of Pryor

70 O.B.A.J. 1271 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 8, 1998

Partnership v. … Kating v.

Butler v. McSpadden

25 Okla. 465 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 11, 1910

See Aldridge et al. v. Board of Education of Stillwater, 15 Okla. 354 , 82 Pac. 827 ; Nettograph Machine Co. v. Brown et al., 19 Okla. 77 , 91 Pac. 849 . In the case of Neltograph Machine Co. v. … Pl. & Pr. 729; Parson v. Haskell, 30 Ill. App. 444 ; Mattoon v. Holmes, 14 Ill. App. 392 ; Green v. Blalack, 25 Tex. 417 ; Richter v. Fresno Canal Co. [ 101 Cal. 582 ], 36 Pac. 96 ; Davis v.

Smith v. School Dist. No. 1

187 Okla. 184 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 30, 1940

Shofner v. Mercer, 164 Okla. 170 , 23 P. 2d 623 . This latter case was followed in Johnson v. Brown, 180 Okla. 148 , 68 P. 2d 855 , where the county superintendent was required by mandamus to approve a contract. … Board of County Commissioners, 136 Okla. 85 , 276 P. 474 ; Faught v. City of Sapulpa, 145 Okla. 164 , 292 P. 15 ; School District No. 76, Creek County, v. Bath, 120 Okla. 204 , 250 P. 1003 ; Dungan v.

Opinion No. 80-047 (1980) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 11, 1980

See Adolph Coors Co. v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Okl. 584 P.2d 717 (1978), Semke v. State ex rel. … See Lamb v. Brown, Okl. 456 P.2d 18 (1972) and State v. Dist. Ct. of Mayes County, Okl. 440 P.2d 700 (1968).

Opinion No. 71-419 (1971) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 19, 1971

In the case of Brown v. … In the case of Ramsey v.

Charles W Brown and Patty N Brown LLC v. Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent Inc

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 17, 2021

BROWN AND ) PATTY N. … Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted); see also Robbins v.

STATE EX REL. TULSA CLASSROOM TEACHER'S ASSOCIATION v. Board of Equalization, Tulsa County

600 P.2d 861 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 18, 1979

That Wilson V. … That Wilson V.

Board of County Commissioners v. Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma Self-Insurance Group

339 P.3d 866 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 21, 2014

¶ 5 This issue is answered in City of Choctaw v. Oklahoma Municipal Assurance Group, 2013 OK 6 , 302 P.3d 1164 . … Nelson v. La Crosse County District Attorney, 301 F.3d 820, 826 (7th Cir.2002).

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 28, 1956

OPINION — AG — ** CONTRACT — TEACHER — ENSUING YEAR ** (1) THE PRIMARY RULE OF A STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION THAT REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED (BROWN V. … BOARD OF EDUCATION, 126 P.2d 241 ), THE AG IS OF THE OPINION THE THE PROVISIONS OF 70 O.S. 8 -6 [70-8-6] WERE NOT REPEALED BY IMPLICATION OF SAID CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. (2) SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 51 IS LIABLE TO THE TEACHER

Pruitt v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Board of Review

918 P.2d 80 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 2, 1996

It is well settled that judicial review of a decision of the Board of Review is a “special proceeding,” not a civil action. Edmondson v. Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc., 577 P.2d 72 (Okla.1978). … General provisions of civil procedure do not apply to the special proceeding for district court review of decisions by the Board of Review. See District Ct. for Seventeenth Jud. Dist. v.

Watts v. Bd. of Commissioners Cleveland Co.

21 Okla. 231 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 15, 1908

See Independent District of Boyer v. King, 80 Iowa, 497 , 45 N. W. 908 ; Bunton v. King, 80 Iowa, 506 , 45 N. W. 1050 ; Myers v. Board of Education of Clay Center, 51 Kan. 87 , 32 Pac. 658 , 37 Am. St. Rep. 263 .” … (First National Bank v. Bunting & Co., 7 Idaho, 27 , 59 Pac. 929, 1106 ; Green v. Custer County, 8 Idaho, 721 , 71 Pac. 115 ; Myers v. Board of Education, 51 Kan. 87 , 32 Pac. 658 , 37 Am. St. Rep. 263 .)

State v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF IND. SCH. DIST. NO. ONE

339 P.2d 534 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 5, 1959

In the first paragraph of the syllabus to Board of Education of City of Ardmore v. State ex rel. … Friend v.