Case law

Kirk v. Union Graded School Dist. No. 1

180 Okla. 198 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 11, 1937

The plaintiff also cites Board of Com’rs of McCurtain County v. … Another asserted justification for the judgment is that the contract is void because it was entered into by the two members of the school board as individuals and not as a board, —citing School District v.

Marshall v. Sitton

68 Okla. 175 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1918

In State v. … State v. Brown, 8 Okla. Cr. 40 , 126 Pac. 245 , Ann. Cas. 1914C. 394; Ex parte Hudson, 3 Okla. Cr. 393 , 106 Pac. 540 , 107 Pac. 735 ; Long v. Allen, Judge, 10 Okla. Cr. 182 , 135 Pac. 443 .

American Asbestos Products Co. v. Independent School Dist. No. 14

196 Okla. 274 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1945

A legal and binding contract against a school district can be made only by its board of education in regular session. Board of Education of Town of Carney v. … School board members who sign such a written order and procure delivery of the supplies ordered thereby are personally liable thereon. Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136 , 20 L.

Blair v. Board of Regents ex rel. Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges ex rel. Oklahoma State University of Agricultural & Applied Sciences

421 P.2d 228 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 13, 1966

See Phillips v. Ladd, Okl., 399 P.2d 501, 504 , and Choctaw Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission, Okl., 295 P.2d 800, 806 , citing Mortgage Bond Co. v. Stephens, 181 Okl. 419 , 74 P.2d 361 . … Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v.

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Emergency Physicians, Inc.

631 P.2d 743 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1981

In Citizens' Action for Safe Energy, Inc. v. … (Citing, Price v. Continental Cas. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 887 (1950)).

State ex rel. Independent School District No. 1 of Oklahoma County v. Barnes

762 P.2d 921 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1988

Davis v. Davis, 708 P.2d 1102 (Okl.1985), Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Moss, 509 P.2d 666 (Okl.1973), and State ex rel. Ogden v. Hunt, 286 P.2d 1088 (Okl.1955). … Oldham v. Drummond Board of Education of Independent School District No. I-85, 542 P.2d 1309 (Okl.1975).

BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. STATE ex rel. OKLA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

2021 OK CIV APP 33 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 2021

OF THE COUNTY OF LINCOLN, OKLAHOMA, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF DELAWARE, OKLAHOMA, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. … Art. 10, §9(a). 2 See also Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bryan v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections , 2015 OK CIV APP 86 , 362 P.3d 241 .

School District No. 76 v. Capitol National Bank

7 Okla. 45 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1898

(Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 266 ; Mobile v. Watson, 116 U. S. 289 , 6 Sup. Ct. 398; Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 Wall. 1 ; Mt. Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 514 .) … of this act, may have his remedy by a writ of mandamus against such district or township school board, or board of county commissioners in any court having jurisdiction, and such action may be brought in the name of the

Franklin v. Ryan

125 Okla. 161 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 17, 1927

Payne v. Ross, 95 Okla. 273 , 219 Pac. 144 ; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. … This court, in the case of Schaff, Receiver, v. Borum, County Treasurer, 82 Okla. 284 , 200 Pac. 191 , and Simmons v.

In Re Moore

182 Okla. 330 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 1, 1938

This section was construed in the case of Board of Com'rs of Canadian Co. v. … J., BAYLESS, V. C. J., and WELCH, PHELPS, CORN, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. RILEY and HURST, JJ., dissent.

Gibson Products Co. v. Murphy

186 Okla. 714 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 27, 1940

There the act was to become operative upon approval within limited time by the Federal Social Security Board, as provided in section 903, Title IX, of the Federal Act, and therein was considered a provision that “the operation … Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 94 Conn. 47 , 108 Atl. 154 , affirmed 254 U. S. 113 . See, also, Hagood v. Doughton, 195 N. C. 811 , 143 S. E. 841 ; Brown v. State, 323 Mo. 138 , 19 S. W. 2d 12 ; People v.

Hamilton Twp. v. Underwood

81 Okla. 256 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 10, 1921

Sango v. Sparks, 44 Okla. 223 , 144 Pac. 1158 ; Postoak v. Lee, 46 Okla. 477 , 149 Pac. 155 ; Huff v. Lee, 46 Okla. 485 , 149 Pac. 158 ; Thompson v. … Wilkinson, 46 Okla. 115 , 148 Pac. 177 ; Washington County Abstract Co. v. Harris, 48 Okla. 577 , 149 Pac. 1075 ; Dunn v. Modern Foundry & Machinery Co., 51 Okla. 465 , 151 Pac. 893 .

Milam v. Smith-Mauer Bros.

38 Okla. 328 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 10, 1913

The authority of the board of county commissioners to correct the defects or errors in the assessment of tax rolls is statutory, and must be strictly confined to the limits marked out by the statute. Bostick v. Bd. Co. … That the board of county commissioners and the district court were without jurisdiction of the application of plaintiffs for the correction of the assessment is, in effect, determined by Bostick v.

Huston v. Curtis Companies, Inc.

160 Okla. 216 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 6, 1932

Inc., v. … In Sowers v.

Ferrell v. Town of Mountain View

127 Okla. 246 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 27, 1927

The board of trustees could not, by such an unauthorized order or resolution, bind the town and release the treasurer from liabil- Counsel for plaintiff in error cite the case. of State ex rel. v. … PlaIntiff also cites the cue of Stephens v. City of Ludlow (Ky.) 169 S. W. 473 , and the case of Commonwealth v. Godshaw (Ky.) 17 S. W. 737 .

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Dana Prieto, Oklahoma State Senate, District 34

2024 OK AG 6 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 26, 2024

COM'RS Discussed at Length 1924 OK 396 , 231 P. 250 , 104 Okla. 260 , BOARD OF COM'RS OF TULSA COUNTY v. NEWS-DISPATCH PRINT Discussed 2010 OK 5 , 237 P.3d 134 , ESTATE OF CROWELL v. … F.O.P., Lodge No. 188 v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa Co. Discussed at Length 1982 OK 133 , 658 P.2d 464 , Summey v. Tisdale Discussed at Length 1951 OK 262 , 236 P.2d 987 , 205 Okla. 233 , JOHNSTON v.

DISCIPLINARY RULES OF STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS

2015 OK 3 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 12, 2015

The Board may initiate a complaint upon its own motion. 2) A complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the Board, who shall transmit copies to all members of the Board. … State Board Of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters, Complainant, ___________________ No. v.

Pollard v. State

528 P.2d 1121 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 20, 1974

See: Sandefur v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 954 (1969). The eighth complaint concerns punishment on the second stage of the proceedings, and is related to discussion of Lamb v. Brown, supra. … This writer has dissented to this Court’s decisions holding the Lamb v. Brown decision to be non-retroaetive. See Hawkins v. State, Okl.Cr., 510 P.2d 693 (1973) and Schaffer v. Green, Okl.Cr., 496 P.2d 375 (1972).

State Ex Rel. City of Okmulgee v. Moroney

156 Okla. 200 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 12, 1932

The brief of the city of Oklahoma City, in the case of Bodine v. … Also, in the case of City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co.

Morehouse v. State

150 P.3d 395 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 24, 2006

Board of Regents v. Oklahoma Merit Protection Commussion, 2001 OK 17 , 19 P.3d 865 . … The Legislature is restricted from limiting the governing powers of these constitutional Boards. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma v. Baker, 1981 OK 160 , 638 P.2d 464 . 12 . This statute provides: A.