Case law

London Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Cummings

23 Okla. 126 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 26, 1909

Abel v. Blair, 3 Okla. 399 , 41 Pac. 342 ; United States v. C., O. & G. Ry. Co. et al., 3 Okla. 404 , 41 Pac. 729 ; Sigman v. Poole, 5 Okla. 677 , 49 Pac. 944 ; Blanchard v. … United States, 6 Okla. 587 , 52 Pac. 736 ; Board of County Commissioners of Day County v. Hubble, 8 Okla. 209 , 57 Pac. 163 ; Noyes v. Tootle, 8 Okla. 505 , 58 Pac. 652 ; Board of Commissioners of Garfield County v.

Wilson v. Wiggins

7 Okla. 517 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1898

(Railroad Co. v. Nolan, 48 N. Y. 513 .) … (Susquehanna Bank v. Board of Supervisors of Broome Co., 25 N. Y. 312 .)

Associated Builders & Contractors v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Department of Labor

628 P.2d 1156 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 28, 1981

Brown v. Banking Board, Okl., 512 P.2d 166 (1973). II. … V.

Opinion No. (2004)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 15, 2004

of Examiners in Optometry ("Board"). … State Bd. of Embalmers Funeral Dir. v. Guardian Funeral Home, 429 P.2d 732 , 736 (Okla. 1967) (quoting Moore v.

Opinion No. (1995)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 15, 1995

TXO Production Corp. v. Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 829 P.2d 964 (Okla. 1992). … TWA v. McKinley, 749 P.2d 108 (Okla. 1988). ¶ 4 The Oklahoma Legislature has specifically provided that no person may serve more than two full terms as a board member. 65 O.S.Supp. 1994, § 4-103[ 65-4-103 ] (b).

Bayless v. State

350 P.2d 520 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 16, 1960

In considering this contention the court is bound by the rule heretofore adopted by this Court which is well stated in the case of Hubbard v. … This court is bound by the rule laid down in the case of Bundy v.

Battle v. State

515 P.2d 269 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 18, 1973

Brown, and requested an additional twenty-four (24) hours within which to plead. … With regard to detention for some two days before being brought before a magistrate, defendant did not allege prejudice arising therefrom as required under Grimes v. State, Okl.Cr., 512 P.2d 231 (1973) and Brown v.

Opinion No. 69-290 (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 16, 1969

Co. v. Ferguson Inv. … In the case of Boydston v.

Dahl v. Hughes

347 P.2d 208 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 1959

II, Secs. 2, 6, 7 and 24; Hargrove v. Town of Cocoa Beach, Fla., 96 So.2d 130 , 60 A.L.R.2d 1193 ; Oklahoma City v. Vetter, 72 Okl. 196 , 179 P. 473 , 4 A.L.R. 1009 ; Page v. … See Consolidated School District No. 1 v. Wright, 128 Okl. 193 , 261 P. 953 , 56 A.L.R. 152 ; Wright v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 1, 162 Okl. 110 , 19 P.2d 369 . The rule was applied in the case of Cox v.

Protest of St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co.

162 Okla. 62 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 14, 1933

The protest is a collateral attack upon a judgment entered in the district court of Lincoln county in the case of Wilson v. Board of Education of the City of Stroud. … AYe think the pleadings and the findings of the district court of Lincoln county in Wilson v. Board of Education of Stroud, Okla., bring it within the rule announced in Re Protest of St.

Taber v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co.

177 Okla. 67 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 12, 1935

Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U. … These cases were doubtless considered in Jaybird Mining Co. v. Weir, supra, since they were cited by Mr. Justice Brandéis in his dissenting opinion. Thomas v.

Heenan v. Davis

182 Okla. 237 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 1938

Livingston v. Brown, 100 Okla. 17 , 227 P. 124 . The testimony of Davis showed that he sought out Sewell and after negotiations obtained the letter or document dated April 19, 1934. … Williams v. Casparis Bros., 113 Okla. 51 , 238 P. 438 . In the absence of fraud or mistake, not pleaded here, Davis by accepting the written contract became bound by its recitals. Brown v.

Fraternal Order of Police No. 165 v. City of Choctaw

933 P.2d 261 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 27, 1997

The arbitration board heard the remaining issues on September 20, 1994 and rendered its decision on October 14, 1994. The board accepted the “last best offer” of the FOP. … We do not find persuasive the cities’ reliance on City of Ardmore v. Excise Board, 155 Okla. 126 , 8 P.2d 2 (1932).

Yazel v. William K. Warren Medical Research Center, Inc.

364 P.3d 1281 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 24, 2014

of Equalization (Board),. … Jones v. State of Oklahoma ex rel, Office of Juvenile Affairs, see note --, supra; King v. King, 2005 OK 4, 122 , 107 P.3d 570 , Fuller v. Odom, 1987 OK 64 , T4, 741 P.2d 449, 453 ; Darnell v.

TRUSTY v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY

2016 OK 94 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 20, 2016

Price v. … , or performed by a laboratory that is exempt from the Board rules pursuant to Section 759 of this title. . . . 8 Tapp v.

Parker v. Lynch

7 Okla. 631 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1898

Jones v. Brown, 54 Iowa, 74 -79: “Jurisdiction is defined to be the authority of law to act officially in the matter then in hand.” Mills v. Commonwealth, 13 Penn. … In the case of Quinby v.

Opinion No. 77-208 (1978) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 15, 1978

Johnson v. Ward, 541 P.2d 182 (Okl., 1975). A plain reading of these statutes reveals that the district attorney can give opinions, advice, and provide defense services only to county officers and employees. … In an analogous case, Board of County Commissioners v.

Opinion No. (1985)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 8, 1985

Schooler v. Lisle , 299 S.W.2d 792 (Ky. 1957); Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary District , 269 N.E.2d 457 (Ill. 1971). … In Arthur v.

Abraham v. Van Meter

303 P.2d 434 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 7, 1956

Aikens v. … Co. v. California E.

Opinion No. 74-101 (1974) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 24, 1974

In general, the adoption of a code does not have an altering or repealing effect upon existing laws: As stated in Bussett v. … The opinion cites Ratliff v.