Case law

Cobb v. Martin

32 Okla. 588 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 9, 1912

Gitchel, 14 Okla. 523 , 78 Pac. 94 ; Martin Browne Co. v. Morris, 1 Ind. T. 495 , 41 S. W. 423 . … Brown, 23 Ark. 333 , it was said by the Supreme Court of Arkansas: “A recovery upon this writing was resisted, on the ground that the moneys mentioned were advanced by Brown upon a partnership enterprise in which he and the

Davenport v. Jamison

74 Okla. 82 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 31, 1918

Brown, 68 Okla. 144 , 172 Pac. 643 . The question involved in this action is entirely different from the question decided in the case of Littlefield v. Brown. … The ques- *84 lion presented and determined in Littlefield v. Brown was whether or not the court could render a judgment for a greater sum than the amount indorsed on the back of the summons.

Okmulgee County Rural Water District No. 2 v. Beggs Public Works Authority

211 P.3d 225 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 16, 2009

Lowery v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 2007 OK 38, 111 , 160 P.3d 959, 963-964 ; Gaines v. … Alternate Count V. 8 .

Clark v. Carter

86 Okla. 126 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 28, 1922

With reference to the State Board of Public Affairs in this particular case, and in reference to the powers of the State Board of Affairs generally, there appears to be an unjustified confusion as to whether the Board of … Tulsa v. Purdy, 73 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 759 . This, in our opinion, is the law which governs this case.

Fennell v. Lannom

46 Okla. 519 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 18, 1915

Wiedwall v. Dodson, 95 Cal. 450 , 30 Pac. 580 . (Id.) “Sec. 8176. … State v. Dunson, 71 Tex. 65 , 9 S. W. 103 . Where an attempted dissolution is void, acquiescence and lapse of time *525 are not sufficient. Largen v. State, 76 Tex. 323 , 13 S. W. 161 .

In Re Visitation Rights of Fox

567 P.2d 985 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 21, 1977

The Kansas Supreme Court in Browning v. … Stark v. Watson, 359 P.2d 191 (Okl.1961). 3 . Browning v. Tarwater, 215 Kan. 501 , 524 P.2d 1135 (1974). 4 . In the Matter of Del Moral Rodriguez, 552 P.2d 397 (Okl.1976). 5 .

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.

Denney v. Scott

63 O.B.A.J. 2793 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 29, 1992

They cite Roussel v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. … 1); 12 O.S.1981, §§ 2401 and 2402; Messler v.

Tiger v. Wildman

116 Okla. 171 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 16, 1926

See Woodward v. DeGraffenreid, 238 U. S. 284 ; Reynolds v. Fewell, 236 U. S. 58 ; Barnett v. Way, 29 Okla. 784 , 119 Pac. 418 ; Childers v. Samuels, 107 Okla. 169 , 232 Pac. 103 . … To the same effect are the cases of Tiger v. Drumright, 95 Okla. 174 , 217 Pac. 453 ; Ross v. Groom. 90 Okla. 270 , 217 Pac. 480 ; Atkinson v. King, 93 Okla. 37 , 219 Pac. 914 ; Burris v.

Stahl v. State

665 P.2d 839 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 22, 1983

See Grosjeon v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 , 56 S.Ct. 444 , 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 , 86 S.Ct. 719 , 15 L.Ed.2d 637 (1966); Gomillion v. … Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 , 71 S.Ct. 325 , 95 L.Ed. 267 (1951); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 , 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980); Garrett v. Estelle, 424 F.

Opinion No. (2009)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2009

The President of the Dental Board, Dr. … The Authority of the Oklahoma Board of Dentistry The Oklahoma Constitution authorized the Legislature to create the entity now known as the Oklahoma Board of Dentistry. OKLA. CONST. art. V , § 39 .

Sumner Coal Mining Co. v. Pleasant

127 Okla. 174 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 14, 1926

The powers of the corporation are exercised by and through its board of directors, and the property of the corporation is subject to the control of the board. Section 5334, C. O. S. 1921. … It was said -by the Supreme Court of Utah, in the ease of Gay v. Young Men’s Consolidated Co-Op.

Opinion No. (2007)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 20, 2007

In re Initiative Petition No. 281 v. Rogers , 434 P.2d 941 , 952 (Okla. 1967). … Bd. of Regents v. Baker , 638 P.2d 464 , 466 (Okla. 1981). "Limitations on legislative authority may be implied as well as expressed in the Constitution." Id.

Appeal of Billings Community Elevator, Inc.

510 P.2d 953 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 25, 1972

Unlike appeals from a county board of equalization to the district court, those appeals are not tried de novo. In two of the cases, Chapman, County Treasurer, et al. v. … The situation herein is not at all comparable to the situation in County Board of Equalization of Kay County v. Frontier Grain Company (1969), Okl., 454 P.2d 317 .

BURNS v. CLINE

387 P.3d 348 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 13, 2016

Fent v. Fallin, 2013 OK 107, ¶ 4 , 315 P.3d 1023, 1025 (citation omitted). 12 . Id. 13 . Fent v. State ex rel. … Burns v. Cline, supra.; Oklahoma Capitol, supra. 20 . Burns v. Cline, 2016 OK 99, ¶ 11 , 382 P.3d at 1051 , citing Oklahoma Capitol, 2009 OK 15, ¶ 15 , 214 P.3d 799, 804-805 . 21 . Burns v.

Southland Associates v. Clay

69 O.B.A.J. 1234 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 17, 1998

In County Board of Equalization v. … It cited Bliss Hotel Co. v.

Jamison v. Oklahoma Power & Water Co.

185 Okla. 103 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 1939

Hall & Briscoe v. Strode, 163 Okla. 11 , 20 P.2d 186 . … WELCH, V. C. J., absent.

Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Sappington

124 Okla. 16 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 19, 1926

Lusk v. Eminhiser, 53 Okla. 785 , 158 Pac. 915 . How, then, can we justify a levy of 3.5 mills for “current expenses?” … Adams v. Board of Commissioners of Garfield County et al., 35 Okla. 440 , 130 Pac. 148 ; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369 , Fed. Cases No. 16690; McNally v. Field (C.

Opinion No. 78-207 (1978) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 31, 1978

In Zeilenga v. … Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Gardner, Okl., 353 P.2d 695 (1960). It is further reflected in State v. Oakes, Okl., 281 P.2d 749 , 753 (1955), citing Board of County Commissioners of Creek County v.

Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe

258 P.3d 516 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 2011

The Sixth Cireuit has held that a waiver of sovereign immunity clause in a tribal corporation's contract was insufficient without approval of the board by resolution, as required by tribal law. Memphis Biofuels LLC v. … Tribal law required approval of the board of directors to waive sovereign immunity and, without board approval, CNI's sovereign immunity remained intact. 585 F.3d at 922 .