Case law

Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System ex rel. Nesbitt v. Nelson

421 P.2d 221 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 27, 1966

In the Board of Co. Com’rs v. Oklahoma Pub. Emp. Retire. … As we stated in Board of Co. Com’rs v. Oklahoma Pub. Emp. Retire.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pettigrew

180 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 5, 2016

OPINION AND ORDER CLAIRE V. … See Farthing v.

Stine v. Lewis, Sheriff

33 Okla. 609 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 15, 1912

See City of Kansas City et al. v. Union Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 59 Kan. 427 , 53 Pac. 468 , 52 L. R. A. 321; Dejarnett v. Haynes, 23 Miss. 600 ; Sullivan, etc., v. Berry's Adm’r, 83 Ky. 198 , 4 Am. St. … State v. Railway Co., 76 Kan. 467 , 92 Pac. 606 . To the same effect is Schaake v. Dolley, 85 Kan. 598 , 118 Pac. 80 [37 L. R. A. (N.

St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Tate

35 Okla. 563 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 1913

Co. v. … A clear absence of authority to do an official act has always been held to render the act void” *571 —citing Hurt v. Hamilton, 25 Kan. 76 ; Board of County Commissioners of Osborne County v.

Abel v. Madden

738 P.2d 1340 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1987

The applicable statutes and the authority of county excise boards was discussed by this Court in Summey v. Tisdale, 658 P.2d 464, 468-70 (Okla.1982) and Rogers v. … See Little v.

Smith Engineering Works v. Custer

194 Okla. 318 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 9, 1944

See Baldwin v. Fennimore, 149 Kan. 825 , 89 P. 2d 883 ; Hollinger v. Board of Com’rs, 115 Kan. 92 , 222 P. 136 ; Taylor v. Betts, 59 Ariz. 172 , 124 P. 2d 764 ; Haws v. … Co. v. Excise Board of Stephens Co., 168 Okla. 519 , 34 P. 2d 274 ; Dabney v. Hooker, 121 Okla. 193 , 249 P. 381 ; State v. Bonner, 86 Okla. 280 , 208 P. 825 .

Application of Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla.

195 Okla. 641 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 21, 1945

Kerr, Governor, v. … We find that the Board of Regents has provided in what order of priority such funds shall be expended and that the power to do so is within the powers granted to it by the terms of said act.

Lowrey v. Hodges

555 P.2d 1016 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 8, 1976

hearing examiner, citing such cases as Corporation Commission v. … Oklahoma State Personnel *1024 Board, 513 P.2d 116 (Okl.1973), and National Labor Relations Board v. National Paper Company, 216 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1954).

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Mourer

596 P.2d 882 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1979

In Newhouse v. … In Pinson v.

Blake v. Young

128 Okla. 153 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 6, 1927

the action of the board, may appeal to the district court. … See, also, Black v. Geissler, 58 Okla. 335 , 159 Pac. 1124 ; Fast v. Rogers. 30 Okla. 289 , 119 Pac. 241 ; Huber v. Akers, 66 Okla. 11 , 166 Pac. 892 : Going v. Treas., Carter Co., 88 Okla. 222 , 214 Pac. 922 .

Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Larkins

168 Okla. 69 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 27, 1934

Anderson-Kerr, Inc., v. Van Meter, 162 Okla. 176 , 19 P. (2d) 1068 . The land on which Mr. … In doing so it acted within its authority and jurisdiction, as stated in Anderson-Kerr, Inc., v. Van Meter et al., supra.

Sargent v. Central National Bank & Trust Co. of Enid

62 O.B.A.J. 872 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 5, 1991

) and (c) the Board delegated to the chief executive offieer/ehairman of the Board (CEO) the authority to discharge the plaintiff. … See also Lingle v.

In Re Maas

10 Okla. 302 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1900

(See Dewey v. Allgire, 37 Neb. 6 , 40 Am. St. Rep., 468 ; Knox v. Haug, 48 Minn. 58 , 50 N. W. 934 ; Leggate v. Clark, 111 Mass. 308 .) The boards of insanity are special boards created by law for a special purpose. … When a probate judge acts in this capacity, he acts as any other member of the board, and not as a probate judge or as a probate court.

In Re Assessment of Western Union Telegraph Co.

35 Okla. 626 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 29, 1912

Ed. 960 ; Pullman’s Palace Car Co. v. Twombly (C. C.) 29 Fed. 658 ; Atty. Gen. v. Western U. Tel. Co. (C. C.) 33 Fed. 129 ; Pullman’s Palace Car Co. v. Board of Assessors (C. C.) 55 Fed. 206 ; Board of Assessors v. … Co. v. Backus, 133 Ind. 625 , 33 N. E. 432 ; Evansville & I. R. Co. v. West, 138 Ind. 697 , 37 N. E. 1012 ; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 141. Ind. 281, 40 *631 N. E. 1051, 60 L. R. A. 671; State v. Adams Exp.

Ruddell v. City of Jenks ex rel. Dashner

556 P.2d 999 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 9, 1976

Any policeman or police officer who is discharged may appeal to the Board of Review, herein provided. Appeals from decisions of said Board of Review may be taken in the manner provided for in 11 O.S. 1961 , § 541 v. … It was held in City of Tulsa v.

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Employment SEC. Com. v. Tulsa Flower Exchange

192 Okla. 293 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 16, 1943

Personal influence was the only instrument at his command in dealing with the board of directors concerning control of the corporation. It was said, however, in Gaines v. Gaines Bros. … The rule stated in Benner-Coryell Lumber Co. v. Indiana Unemployment Compensation Board, 218 Ind. 20 , 29 N. E. 2d 776 , should be followed here.

Saint Francis Hospital v. Vaughn

971 P.2d 401 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 17, 1998

A settlement was reached between Brown and the tortfeasor’s insurer. The insurance company issued a check, payable to Brown and Vaughn. … Bank of Weatherford, v. Simpson, 187 Okla. 274 , 102 P.2d 844 (Okl.1940), in their supplemental briefs.

Bank of the Lakes, Langley v. First State Bank, Ketchum

708 P.2d 1089 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 8, 1985

In Ruidoso State Bank v. … Horath v. Pierce, 506 P.2d 548 (Okl.1973); Udall v. Udall, 613 P.2d 742 (Okl.1980).

Grubb v. Smiley

142 Okla. 19 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 10, 1929

schools, as held in Board of Education v. … Board of County Commissioners v. School Dist. No. 19, supra. Under section 9822, C. O.

Weeden v. Arnold

5 Okla. 578 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1897

Arnold, president of the board of health, the fees required by the rules and regulations of the board for such certificate; but the statute nowhere makes the president of the board of health the proper officer to whom to … There is nothing in the cases of Barmore v. Dickson, 28 Pac. 8 , and Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114 , relied upon by counsel for petitioner, that conflicts with the views herein expressed.