Case law

Opinion No. (1990)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 8, 1990

ROTRAMEL V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 546 P.2D 1015, 1017 (OKLA. 1975). TEXAS OKLAHOMA EXPRESS V. SORENSON, 652 P.2D 285, 257 (OKLA. 1982) (DICTA). … SEE, MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY V. KING, 381 P.2D 153 (OKLA. 1963).

In Re Borcherding's Custody

196 Okla. 19 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 2, 1945

Supp. 516 ; Brown v. Brown, 2 Ala. A. 461, 56 So. 589 ; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 196 Iowa, 949 , 192 N. W. 146 ; Gill v. Walker, 113 S. C. 39, 100 S.E. 894 ; Brown v. Harden, 150. Ga. 99, 102 S.E. 864 . … See, also, Popham v. Cross, 41 Okla. 629 , 137 P. 673 .

Merritt Independent School Dist. No. 2 of Beckham County v. Jones

207 Okla. 376 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 5, 1952

In Derieg v. Board of Ed. of the Town of Carnegie, 202 Okla. 577 , 216 P. 2d 307 , a schoolhouse was erected upon the lands of another. … In Spencer v. Board of Ed., School Dist.

Fretz v. City of Edmond

66 Okla. 262 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 2, 1916

In Preston et al. v. Board of Water Com’rs of City of Detroit, 117 Mich. 589 , 76 N.W. 92 , it was urged that the city “has no right to discriminate between consumers or to exempt any users. … It is urged that the authority of this case is weakened by the decision in Detroit v. Commissioners, 108 Mich. 494 , 66 N. W. 377 , 31 L. R. A. 463, and Water Board v. Board of Education, 137 Mich. 245 , 100 N.

State Ex Rel. West, Atty. Gen. v. Bellamy

60 Okla. 62 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 28, 1916

Finley v. Territory, 12 Okla. 621 , 73 Pac. 273 ; *63 Broaddus v. Pawnee County, 16 Okla. 473 , 88 Pac. 250 ; Anderson v. Grant County, 44 Okla. 164 , 143 Pac. 1145 . … Anderson v. Grant County, supra; Grant County v. Ernest, 45 Okla. 725 , 147 Pac. 322 .

Moomaw v. Sions

96 Okla. 202 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 10, 1923

In the City of Henderson v. Young, 119 Ky. 224 , 83 S. … Co. v.

Hines v. State

640 P.2d 1385 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 19, 1982

State v. Greenwood, 565 P.2d 701 (Okl.Cr.1977); and Blackburn v. State, 575 P.2d 638 (Okl.Cr.1978). On August 21, 1981, the evidentiary hearing was heard by the district court, and the motion to suppress was denied. … What did you do with this brown sack? A. The brown sack was labeled. I took it in, 1 labeled it. I placed it in the evidence locker that night.

Choate v. State

204 Okla. 596 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 12, 1951

Other charges were made against the doctor in the complaint filed with the Board, but he was exonerated on these charges and his license was revoked solely for the reason that the Board found that the above advertisement … Board of Medical Examiners, supra. The order or finding of the Board of Medical Examiners revoking the defendant’s license is reversed, with directions to set aside the revocation.

Garr v. Minnick

100 Okla. 109 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 24, 1924

McAlester v. Williams, 77 Okla. 65 , 186 Pac. 461 ; Sierzek et al. v. Smith et al., 86 Okla. 797 , 202 Pac. 611 ; Beaty v. Armstrong, 95 Okla. 109 , 218 Pac. 516 . … J. 595, section 615; Brown v. Coppedge 54 Okla. 88 , 153 Pac. 817 : Levin v. Cook, 84 Okla. 55 , 202 Pac. 299 . 3.

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

29 Okla. 523 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 26, 1911

Good et al. v. Keel et al., ante, 116 Pac. 777 ; Walbridge v. Board of County Com’ rs, supra; I Elliott on Roads and Streets (3d Ed.) § 438. … Deeter, supra; Henry v. Ward et al., 49 Neb. 392 , 68 N. W. 518 ; Oyler v. Ross, 48 Neb. 211 , 66 N. W. 1099 ; Livingston v. Board of County Com’rs of Johnson County, 42 Neb. 277 , 60 N. W. 555 ; Beatty et al. v.

Persons v. Penn

33 Okla. 581 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 1, 1912

party took any steps by proceeding in court toward compelling the board to prepare such ballots. … Curtis, 4 Idaho, 193 , 38 Pac. 405 ; Atkeson v. Lay, 115 Mo. 538 , 22 S. W. 481 ; State ex rel. Woody v. Rotwitt, 18 Mont. 502 , 46 Pac. 370 .

McCluskey v. State

372 P.2d 623 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 25, 1962

Wood v. State, Okl.Cr., 321 P.2d 391 , and Tipton v. State, Okl.Cr., 308 P.2d 670 . … In further support of the above assignment of error, the defendant cites Ex parte Cannis, 83 Okl.Cr. 113 , 173 P.2d 586 , and Brown v.

BRISCO v. GERARD

2023 OK CIV APP 19 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 12, 2022

Brown v. Patel , 2007 OK 16, ¶ 10 , 157 P.3d 117 . Therefore, Dalthorp established a physician-patient relationship with Cooper, as a matter of law, if she diagnosed or treated him. A. Evidence Dr. … Discussed 1996 OK 2 , 910 P.2d 1015 , 67 OBJ 196, Dirickson v. Mings Discussed 2006 OK 34 , 148 P.3d 842 , JACOBS RANCH, L.L.C. v. SMITH Discussed 2007 OK 16 , 157 P.3d 117 , BROWN v.

Hudson v. State

525 P.2d 1380 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 21, 1974

Defendant, in his first proposition, argues the case of Fugett v. … See Ferguson v. State, Okl.Cr., 489 P.2d 523 (1971).

Byford v. State

90 Okla. Crim. 230 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 7, 1949

Brown, chief of detectives, Oklahoma Police Department. Mr. … A. 1941, and Clark v. State, 78 Okla. Cr. 423 , 149 P. 2d 994 ; Tripp v. State, supra; McAfee v. State, supra, and Miles v. State, supra. Thereafter, on trial, neither of the defendants testified.

Taylor v. Callahan

82 Okla. 67 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 24, 1921

Plaintiffs in error state this is an overlapping lease and void for the reasons stated in the case of Brown v. Van Pelt, 64 Okla. 109 , 166 Pac. 102 ; it being their contention! … Plaintiffs in error attempt to assume that Brown v.

Martin v. Kelley

139 Okla. 85 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 15, 1929

Upon the filing of such notice of appeal with the secretary of the county election board the county election board shall, at the expense of the party appealing, prepare a transcript of the records and proceedings together … The Supreme Court of Oregon in Tazwell v.

Turlington v. Summers

162 Okla. 13 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 31, 1933

In the case of Madrid v. Sandoval, 13 P. (2d) 877 , the Supreme Court of New Mexico on this question says: “The governing rules are well stated by Mr. Justice Brewer in Hudson v. … the statute, and that while in such custody they have not been so exposed to the reach of unauthorized persons as to afford a reasonable probability of their having been changed or tampered with,’ * * * “As said in Hannah v.

Jones v. Seawell

13 Okla. 711 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 4, 1904

$212.50, with the secretary of the board. … The case of Smith et al. v.

In Re Threadgill

166 Okla. 301 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 21, 1933

Thereafter respondent filed a petition in error in this court to review the action of the Board of Governors. … The action of the Board of Governors is approved and respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Oklahoma. RILEY, O. J., and SWINDALL, ANDREWS, OSBORN, BUSBY, and WELCH, JJ., concur. CULLISON, V. C.