Case law

Smith v. State

13 Okla. Crim. 619 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 21, 1917

P. & P. 607; Board of County Commissioners of Phillips County v. Churning, 4 Colo. App. 321 , 35 Pac. 918 ; Arnett v. Board of County Commissioners of Decatur County, 75 Ga. 782 ; County of Rock Island v. … Steele, 31 Ill. 543 ; Wild v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Columbia, 9 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 315; Board of Commissioners of Sweetwater County v. Young, 3 Wyo. 684 , 29 Pac. 1002 .”

City of Tulsa v. Parrish

333 P.2d 564 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 1958

"As to the case of Quick v. … "In City of Tulsa, v.

Atlas Life Ins. v. W. I. Southern, Inc.

23 F. Supp. 334 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 20, 1938

Co. v. Stewart, 300 U.S. 203 , 57 S.Ct. 377 , 81 L.Ed. 605 , 111 A.L.R. 1268 ; Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U.S. 379 , 55 S.Ct. 310 , 79 L.Ed. 440 ; Brown v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. … In the case of Byrne v.

Chism v. City of Tulsa

192 Okla. 366 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 1943

Louis v. Meyrose Lamp Manufacturing Co., supra. … J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.

In Re Initiative Petition No. 23, State Question No. 38

35 Okla. 49 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 8, 1912

Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511 [7 L. Ed. 242]; Benner v. Porter, 8 How. 235 [ 13 L. Ed. 119 ]; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40 [ 14 L. Ed. 42 ]. … Such is the holding' of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma in the case of Watkins v. Havighorst, 13 Okla. 128 , 74 Pac. 318 , following the case of Board of Education v.

Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority v. District Court of Wagoner County

613 P.2d 746 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 24, 1980

City of McAlester v. Fogg, Okl., 312 P.2d 867 (1956); Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. v. Coryell, Okl., 483 P.2d 1148 (1971); and Schwartz v. Diehl, Okl., 568 P.2d 280 (1977). … Department of Corrections v.

King v. State Ex Rel. O'reilly, Co. Atty.

83 Okla. 297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 13, 1921

The law also permits an appeal from the board of county commissioners to the district court, and from there to this court. ' This court, in the case of Woolsey v. … Counsel for defendant in error relied upon the ease of Board of County Commissioners of Grady County v. Davis (Kan.) 160 Pac. 581 ; Hovey v. Barker (Kan.) 26 Pac. 591 ; and County Attorney ex rel. Lewis *300 v.

Opinion No. 73-273 (1973) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 10, 1974

In the early case of Lusk, et al. v. … The old version of the latter section, almost identical to the present law, was construed in Chapman v.

Opinion No. 77-183 (1977) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 9, 1977

In Allen v. … This statement of rule of law was reaffirmed in Lairmore v.

Incorporated Town of Guymon v. Triplett

71 Okla. 298 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 7, 1919

Laws 1910; Brown v. Marks, 45 Okla 711, 146 Pac. 707 , and cases cited. The appeal is dismissed.

Harmon v. Cradduck

286 P.3d 643 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 18, 2012

Comm'rs of Cnty. of Cleveland, 2010 OK 5, ¶ 22 , 237 P.3d 134, 142 (citing Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79, ¶ 22 , 989 P.2d 448, 455 ). … See Brown v. Okla.

Opinion No. 78-282 (1978) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 12, 1978

U.S. v. Ray, 488 F.2d 15 (1973); Midwest City v. Harris, Okl., 561 P.2d 1357 (1977). As noted by the Court in State ex rel. Otjen v. … This authority further cites the case of O'Neal v.

Opinion No. 77-142 (1977) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 29, 1977

In a 1924 California case, Goldsmith v. … Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 (1968). As stated by the United States Supreme Court in the ease of Tinker v.

Opinion No. 73-191 (1973) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 13, 1973

E.2d 802), must not be unfair (Inland Steel Company) v. N.L.R.B., 109 F.2d 9 ), must not be discriminatory or arbitrary (Railroad Commissioner v. Shell Oil Company, 206 S.W.2d 420 , 146 Tex. 286 and Krill v. … Supp. 14 ), must not be an expression of a whim (American Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. United States, 57 S.Ct. 170 , 299 U.S. 232 , 81 L.Ed. 142 ; and Nelson v.

Breidenthal v. Grooms

161 Okla. 74 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 20, 1932

W. 204 ; Hudson v. Hudson (Ky.) 121 S. W. 973 ; Condor v. Secrest, 149 N. C. 201 , 62 S. E. 921 ; Smith v. Lindsey, 37 Pa. Super. Ct. 171 ; Merck v. Merck, 83 S. C. 329, 65 S. E. 347 ; Pack v. Whitaker (Va.) 15 Va. … In Barker v.

Opinion No. (2003)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 18, 2003

Porter v. Ferrell, 959 P.2d 576 , 578 (Okla. 1998); Maltsberger v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 987 P.2d 437 , 438 (Okla.Ct.App. 1999)), it does not always have this meaning. See Davis v. GHS Health Maint. … McNeill v. City of Tulsa, 953 P.2d 329 , 332 (Okla. 1998).

Opinion No. 74-181 (1974) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 23, 1974

The Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. … A similar holding is found in Stigall v.

Opinion No. (1985)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 8, 1985

McGowan v. Maryland , 366 U.S. 420 , 425-426 , 81 S.Ct. 1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961). To answer your question we must examine the history behind Okla. Const. … Article VI , Section 31a in the case of Board of Regents, Okla. A. M. Col. v. Oklahoma State Regents , 497 P.2d 1062 (Okla. 1972).

Opinion No. 79-008 (1979) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 15, 1979

Inasmuch as members of a board of education customarily assume office by the electoral process, it is clear that none serve by contract. The leading case defining a public officer is State v. Sowards, 64 Okl. … See also Farley v. Bd. of Education of City of Perry, 62 Okl. 181 , 162 P. 797 (1917). It is clear under the foregoing authority that a member of a school board or board of education is an "officer."

County of Okmulgee ex rel. Board of County Commissioners

368 P.2d 502 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 23, 1962

In Long et al. v. … State Highway Commission v.