Case law

Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McIntosh

92 Okla. 153 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 18, 1923

In the case of Board of Excise of Oklahoma County v. … (Lamb v. Palmer, 79 Okla. 86 , 191 Pac. 164 ; Wallace v. Excise Board of Bryan County, 91 Okla. 101 , 216 Pac. 654 .) For the reasons stated, we think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Tahona Smokeless Coal Co. v. State Industrial Commission

134 Okla. 123 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 1928

United States Zinc Co. v. Little et al., 109 Okla. 214 , 235 Pac. 523 . This is the only question presented for our determination by this appeal. … Both the claimant and Doctor Browning testified in detail as to the nature and'extent of his injuries, and Doctor Browning testified that “he is totally disabled to do manual labor now and always will be.”

Owen v. City of Tulsa

27 Okla. 264 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 21, 1910

Beaumont v. Bramley, 1 Turner & Russell, 41-50; Marquis of Breadalbane v. *275 Marquis of Chandos, 2 Mylne & Craig, 711; Fowler v. Fowler, 4 De Gex & Jones, 255; Sells v. Sells, 1 Drewry & Snales, 42; Loyd v. … Booke v. Lord Kinsington, 2 Kay & Johnson, 753: Eaton v. Bennett. 34 Ravan. 196. A mistake on one side may be a ground for rescinding, but not for reforming a contract. Mortimer v.

Bailey v. State

494 P.2d 1252 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 1972

At the revocation hearing, Lozier Brown testified that he was employed as an officer of the Department of Corrections and that the defendant was assigned to him on May 4, 1970. … On May 7, 1970, the defendant appeared at Brown’s office and they went over the rules and regulations of probation. On June 4, 1970, defendant made the May report; on July 14, he made the June report.

School Dist. No. 76 v. Bath

120 Okla. 204 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 23, 1926

Between the date of plaintiff’s contract with the school board and the time fixed by the contract for beginning the school term, there was a change in the personnel of the school board, two members having-retired, and the … year for services then to be performed, is violative of the intent and purpose of section 26, article 10 of the state Constitution, as declared in Gentis v.

Brazell v. Zeigler, County Clerk

26 Okla. 826 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 12, 1910

See, also, Tucker et al. v. Board of Freeholders, 1 N. J. Eq. 282; Patterson Ordinary v. Taylor et al., 98 Ga. 646 , 25 S. E. 771 ; *833 Board of Commissioners v. State ex rel., 141 Ind. 187 , 40 N. E. 686 ; State v. … See, also, Seitizinger v. Electric Co., 187 Pa. 539 , 41 Atl. 454 ; Straub v. Pittsburgh, 138 Pa. 356 , 22 Atl. 93 ; Howard v. Borough of Olyphant et al., 181 Pa. 191 , 37 Atl. 258.

Alfalfa Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City

525 P.2d 644 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 23, 1974

See Board of Education, etc. v. Allen, 195 Okl. 209 , 156 P.2d 596 (1945). The meaning of the phrase “any substantial portion of its property” as heretofore determined accomplishes this purpose. … J., WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and BERRY, BARNES and DOOLIN, JJ., concur. IRWIN, HODGES and SIMMS, JJ., dissent. 1 . Paraphrased from language in Magruder v.

Wald v. State

513 P.2d 330 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 1, 1973

Washington v. State, Okl.Cr., 426 P.2d 372 (1967). … Therefore we find this case falls within the rule set forth in Holt v.

OLVERA v. STATE

2024 OK CR 28 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 2024

Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471, 486 (1963). See also Matthews v. State , 1998 OK CR 3 953 P.2d 336 Brown v. Illinois , 422 U.S. 590, 599 (1975). The U.S. … State , 2006 OK CR 34 142 P.3d 437 Mason v. State , 2018 OK CR 37 433 P.3d 1264 Mitchell v. State , 2018 OK CR 24 424 P.3d 677 McDaniel v. Brown , 558 U.S. 120, 130-31 (2010).

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ATKESON

2023 OK CIV APP 46 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 27, 2023

Keating v. … See Collier v.

Rupe v. Shaw

286 P.2d 1094 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 20, 1955

Perry v. Jordan, supra. As held in Adwon v. … In State v.

Osage & Oklahoma Co. v. Millard, Co.

45 Okla. 334 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 9, 1915

The court cites People v. Kelsey, 34 Cal. 473 ; People v. Hastings, 29 Cal. 450 ; People v. Sangent, 44 Cal. 434 ; Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 648 ; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Orange County Commissioners, 74 N. … Co. v. Trapp, 186 Fed. 116 , 108 C. C. A. 226 ; State ex rel v. Brunst, 26 Wis. 412 , 7 Am. Rep. 84 ; King v. Hunter, 65 N. C. 603 , 6 Am. Rep. 754 ; Anderson v.

Swank v. Regional University System of the Oklahoma Board of Regents

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 12, 2024

) STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. ) The Regional University System of the ) Oklahoma Board … Wills v. Brown Univ., 184 F.3d 20, 26 (1st Cir. 1999).

Myers v. Independent School District

104 Okla. 51 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 30, 1924

Hamm et al., 61 Okla. 174 , 160 Pac. 878 ; Threadgill et al. v. Peterson et al., 95 Okla. 187 , 219 Pac. 389 ; Lacey et al. v. Board of Education of School Dist. A, City of Anadarko, 98 Okla. 237 , 224 Pac. 712 . … Board of Com’rs of Creek County v. Alexander, 58 Okla. 128 , 159 Pac. 311 ; Thacker *54 v. Witt, 64 Okla. 169 , 166 Pac. 713 ; Town of Comanche v. Ferguson, 67 Okla. 101 , 169 Pac. 1075 .

State Ex Rel. Schones v. Town of Canute

64 O.B.A.J. 2091 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 29, 1993

Lockhart v. Board of Commissioners of Lincoln County, 197 Okla. 605 , 173 P.2d 725 (1946), Cummings v. Board of Education, 190 Okla. 533 , 125 P.2d 989 (1942), Battles v. … Mobbs, infra note 26 at 550-551. [20] Brown v.

Jungels v. Town of Hennessey

202 Okla. 619 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 11, 1950

Our views upon this question are further supported by the decisions of this court in Lowden et al. v. Washita County Excise Board, 188 Okla. 698 , 113 P. 2d 370 ; and School District No. 37, Washita County, et al. v. … Clark v. Lockstone, 170 Okla. 316 , 39 P. 2d 971 . The evidence in the record shows no fraud on the part of the board of trustees.

Question Submitted by: Taylor Henderson, Administrative Director, Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints

2024 OK AG 17 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 1, 2024

Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero , , ¶ 20, , 44. … (citing Vogel v. Corp. Comm'n of Oklahoma , , , 587). ¶11 Such analysis applies equally to other state boards, agencies or commissions in the executive branch.

Tenneco Oil Company v. Allen

515 P.2d 1391 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 30, 1973

See also Sunray D-X Oil Company v. Brown (1970), Okl., 477 P.2d 67 , wherein this court held that damages resulting from an oil and gas operation can be recovered in an action brought on a nuisance theory. … Compare, however, Sunray D-X Oil Company v. Brown, supra.

Murphy v. Darnell

268 P.2d 860 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1954

King v. … . * * *» The same general statement was made in the case of Stafford v. State Election Board, 203 Okl. 132 , 218 P.2d 617 . As herein above pointed out, the case of Martin v.

Copeland v. Boots Pharmaceuticals

67 O.B.A.J. 1609 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 20, 1996

She threw off the covers and saw a brown spot on the sheet, not the body of a spider. She said: A. … In American Management Systems, Inc. v.