Case law

State Ex Rel. Dunlop, State Treas. v. Cruce

31 Okla. 486 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 12, 1912

The leading case of this class is Sutherland v. Governor, 29 Mich. 320 , 18 Am. Rep. 89 . People ex rel. Broderick v. Morton, 156 N. Y. 136, 50 N. E. 791 , 41 L. R. A. 231, 66 Am. St. … In Betts v.

Jacobs v. State

128 P.3d 1085 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 2006

Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-04 , 95 S.Ct. at 2261-62 (specifically discussing admission of confessions after an illegal arrest); McGaughey v. State, 2001 OK CR 33 , 37 P.3d 130, 141 , citing United States v. … Brown, 422 U.S. at 605 , 95 S.Ct. at 2262 ; McGaughey, 37 P.3d at 142 . . Turner v. State, 1975 OK CR 224 , 542 P.2d 955, 961 . . 2001 OK CR 33 , 37 P.3d 130 . . 37 P.3d at 144 . . United States 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.

In re Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

427 P.2d 429 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 1966

In Crossett v. … See also Knox v. McMillan, Old., 272 P.2d 1040 .

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. 74-170 (1974) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 22, 1974

Further, applying the rule of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius", Spiers v. … that they are in aid of and not in derogation of the legislative purpose. 42 Am.Jur. 380, 69, and P. 353, 49; Layman v.

State Ex Rel. Pollution Control Co. v. Kerr-McGee Corp.

532 P.2d 1386 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 18, 1975

See Commonwealth v. Emmers, 221 Pa. 298 , 70 A. 762 (1908); Cooper v. State, 48 N.Y.S.2d 212 (Ct.Cl.1944); 32 A.L.R.3rd 215, 255. In Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. … Board of Governors of Registered Dentists v. Melton, 428 P.2d 205, 207 (Okl.1967). We believe the statute in question conforms with the standards of due process.

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.

School District No. 84 v. Asher School Dist. No. 112

168 Okla. 282 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 1, 1934

In the case of Nichols v. … In the case of Curtiss v.

Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Co. v. Winsor

40 Okla. 362 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 3, 1914

Stein, 43 Kan. 35 , 22 Pac. 1020 ; Simpson v. Kirschbaum & Co., 43 Kan. 36 , 22 Pac. 1018 ; Brown v. Kimble, 5 Kan. 80 ; Dolbec v. Hoover, 8 Kan. 124 ; Edenfield v. Barnhart, 5 Kan. 225 ; Simpson v. … Rothchild et al., 43 Kan. 33 , 22 Pac. 1019 ; Kansas Rolling Mill Co. v. Bovard, 34 Kan. 21 , 7 Pac. 622 .

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.

Lazelle v. Estate of Crabtree

225 P.3d 11 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 8, 2009

Id.; see also Groseclose v. … Mullin v. Brown, 210 Ariz. 545 , 115 P.3d 189, 144 (Ct.App.2005).

Opinion No. 76-300 (1976) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 30, 1976

See School Board of Consolidated District No. 36, Stephens County v. Edwards, 184 Okl. 384 , 87 P.2d 962 , 967 (1939), and Davenport v. Buffington, 97 F. 234 , 237 (8th Cir. 1899). See also Harvey v. … Further, Syllabus 1 by the Court in Joachim v.

State Bar v. Retail Credit Ass'n

170 Okla. 246 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 27, 1934

In Board v. … In Allopathic State Board of Medical Examiners v.

Edwards v. State

544 P.2d 60 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 1975

Alexander v. State, Okl.Cr., 305 P.2d 572 (1956). … Synnot v. State, Okl.Cr., 515 P.2d 1154 (1973).

State Ex Rel. Gauntt v. Lasher

116 Okla. 273 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 1926

Love v. Smith, 43 Okla. 231 , 142 Pac. 408 ; Ross et al. v. Hunter et al., 53 Okla. 423 , 157 Pac. 85 . … It is undisputed, as shown by plaintiff’s petition, that said six votes were duly certified to the election board. As held in Town of Grove v.

Opinion No. 71-188 (1971) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 17, 1971

Does the Board of County Commissioners have the authority to set the hours of operation of the Election Board?" … We have checked other provisions of law and find no such authority for the Board of County Commissioners. In the case of State ex rel Tharel, et al. v.

City of Idabel Ex Rel. Woodroof v. School District No. Five (5) of McCurtain County

434 P.2d 285 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 3, 1967

Blythe v. City of Tulsa, supra; Wilson v. City of Hollis, supra. … Wenner v. Mothersead, 129 Okl. 273 , 264 P. 816 ; Home-Stake Production Co. v. Board of Equal., etc., Okl., 416 P.2d 917 .

Sturgeon v. State

483 P.2d 335 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 24, 1971

In Brown v. State, Okl.Cr., 481 P.2d 475 (1971) this Court held: “1. … Although Brown v.

HICKMAN v. STATE ex rel. SERVICE OKLAHOMA

530 P.3d 96 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 14, 2023

Lowery v. … See Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc ., 1992 OK 72 833 P.2d 1218 Hill v. Board of Education, District I-009, Jones, Oklahoma , 1997 OK 10711 , ¶ 5, 944 P.2d 930 Greenwood Centre, Ltd. v.