Case law

Smith v. PIONEER MASONRY, INC.

226 P.3d 687 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 10, 2009

Shephard v. CompSource Oklahoma, 2009 OK 25, ¶ 11 , 209 P.3d 288, 292-93 . ¶ 6 On the issue of public policy, Brown is also inconsistent with the teachings of Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 1992 OK 72 , 833 P.2d 1218 . … Indiana Nat'l Bank v. State Dept. of Human Services, 1994 OK 98 , 880 P.2d 371 . [1] 1995 OK 101 , 905 P.2d 223 . In Brown v.

Board of Com'rs of Bryan County v. Wilkerson

182 Okla. 523 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 26, 1938

Nickel v. Janda, 115 Okla. 207 , 242 P. 264 . … Secundum, Appeal and Error, 402; Hirabelli v. Daniels (Utah) 138 P. 1172 ; Boyd v. Schott (Ind.) 52 N. E. 752 .

Smith v. State

489 P.2d 1086 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 13, 1971

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge: Albert Brown Smith, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried, and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County for the offense of Carrying a Pistol, After Former Conviction of … Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 468 P.2d 805 (1970). The final proposition contends that the punishment is excessive.

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters v. Parrish

152 P.3d 202 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 12, 2006

The Board bears "the burden of persuasion on the material elements of the Complaint." Id. at Rule 7(b). It must do so by "clear and convincing evidence." State of Okla. ex rel. State Bd. of Official Shorthand Reps. v. … Oklahoma Bar Association v. Garrett, 2005 OK 91 , 127 P.3d 600 .

Board of Com'rs of Tulsa County v. Cline

42 Okla. 204 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 12, 1914

See Wallingford v. Wood et al., 41 Okla. 572 , 139 Pac. 252 ; Howard Mercantile Co. et al. v. Squires, County Judge, et al., 41 Okla. 580 , 139 Pac. 253 ; Clinton & O. W. Ry. Co. v. Kansas City, M. & O.

Board of Com'rs of Pontotoc County v. Witherspoon

189 Okla. 277 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 8, 1941

Trudgeon v. Board of County Commissioners of McClain Co., 180 Okla. 83 , 68 P. 2d 82 ; Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County v. Colored Hospital Ass’n, 181 Okla. 357 , 73 P. 2d 833 . … condemned and held illegal in Board of County Com’rs of Pontotoc County v.

Martinez v. Board of Commission

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 22, 2022

CIV-21-344-F ) BOARD OF COMMISSION, et al., ) ) … See, Perry v. Stout, 20 Fed. Appx. 780, 782 (10th Cir. 2001) (“Non- attorney pro se litigants cannot represent other pro se parties.”) (unpublished decision cited as persuasive pursuant to 10" Cir.

Board of Com'rs of Grady Co. v. Castleman

66 Okla. 43 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 31, 1917

See Burrows v. Balfour, 39 Ore. 488 , 65 Pac. 1062 , where it is held that the word “fee” includes_mil-eage and per diem, to which a witness is entitled. The judgment of the lower court is therefore reversed.

Board of Com'rs of Custer County v. Lawter

58 Okla. 310 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 25, 1916

That the defendants are the board of county commissioners of Custer county; that Custer county has a population of not exceeding fifty thousand, and the salary fixed by the *311 general fee and salary law, as compensation … The question, whether the act creating the superior court for Custer county is special legislation, was decided adversely to the contention of counsel in Leatherock et al., v.

HCA Health Services of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Whetsel

173 P.3d 1203 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 2007

State v. One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars, 2006 OK 15, ¶ 25 , 131 P.3d 116, 125 . See also Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, ¶ 5 , 935 P.2d 319, 321 . … Department of Human Services v.

Tulsa County Board of Equalization v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County

743 P.2d 1076 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 29, 1987

See also Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County v. State Board of Equalization, 363 P.2d 242, 246 (Okl.1961); Continental Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 570 P.2d 315 (Okl.1977). … The Board relies on Sioux City Bridge Co. v.

Hemmingway v. Board of Ed., City of Devol

108 Okla. 276 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 19, 1925

Upon the authority of Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okla. 469 , 106 Pac. 957 , this cause is reversed and remanded for new trial for failure of the defendant in error to file brief as provided in rule 7 of this court.

Smith v. Board of Com'rs of Washita County

38 Okla. 436 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 13, 1913

In Polk v. Minnehaha County, 5 Dak. 120 , 37 N. … Hinds v. Marmolejo, 60 Cal. 229, 231 ; Daggs v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 5 Ariz. 409 , 53 Pac. 201, 204 ; Wolverton v. Exchange Nat. Bank, 11 Wash. 94 , 39 Pac. 247 . In Guild v. First Nat. Bank, 4 S. D. 566, 57 N.

Board of Com'rs of Hughes County v. Sneed

171 Okla. 164 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 1935

The facts' in this case are identical with those in Board of County Commissioners of Hughes County v. Edgar M. Young, No. 24753, 171 Okla. 161 , 42 P. (2d) 281 , this day decided. … J., OSBORN, V. O. J., and PHELPS and GIB'SON, J.T., concur.

Ex Parte Woodruff

90 Okla. Crim. 59 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 28, 1949

See, also, Rush v. Brown, 187 Okla. 97 , 101 P. 2d 262 ; Bailey v. State Board of Public Affairs et al., 194 Okla. 495 , 153 P. 2d 235 ; and Gibbons v. Missouri K. & T. R. Co. et al., 142 Okla. 146 , 285 P. 1040 . … W. 891 , and particularly in a late Ohio case involving the public health, and being Weber v. Board of Health, Butler County, et al., 1947, 148 Ohio St. 389 , 74 N.

Brown Truck & Equipment Sales, LLC v. Box

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 19, 2022

Brent Blackstock of Brent Blackstock PLC (“Movant”), who is counsel of record for Defendant Brown Truck and Equipment Sales, LLC (“Plaintiff”). Dkt. No. 14. … Sanders, No. 03-CV-0452-CVE-FHM, 2009 WL 1765981, at *2; see Whiting v.

Bare v. Patterson

200 Okla. 420 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1948

It must be, and is, conceded that ordinarily mandamus will not lie to correct errors of judgment by a board in matters over which the board has jurisdiction. … If the filing was contrary to law by reason of the failure to support the notification and declaration by the required affidavits, accepted for filing by the secretary of the board, then the action of the board must not be

Muskogee Times-Democrat v. Com'rs of Muskogee County

76 Okla. 188 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 14, 1919

Laws 1910, and was so held by this court in the ease of Stillwater Advance Printing and Publishing Company v. Board of County Commissioners of Payne County, 29 Okla. 859 , 119 Pac. 1002 . … When the court in the case of Stillwater Advance Printing & Publishing Company v. Board of County Commisioners of Payne County, 29 Okla. 859 . 119 Pac. 1002 , adopted •the theory that this portion of section 6021, Rev.

Brown Truck & Equipment Sales, LLC v. Box

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 25, 2022

United States v. … Id.; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.

Burba v. State Industrial Commission

195 Okla. 344 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 5, 1944

Hollis v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 174 Okla. 544 , 51 P. 2d 498 ; Cook v. State Industrial Commission, 186 Okla. 157 , 96 P. 2d 1038 ; Brown v. … Board of County Commissioners, 188 Okla. 52 , 105 P. 2d 1068 ; and Zimmerman v. Sanders Const. Co., 188 Okla. 361 , 109 P. 2d 486 .