Case law

Opinion No. (1989)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 23, 1989

OF THE BOARD. … JONES, 126 P. 715 (OKLA. 1912); DUNHAM V. ARDERY, 143 P. 331 (OKLA. 1914).

Burgess v. Bryant

505 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 6, 1980

Crosswhite v. Brown, 424 F.2d 495 (Tenth Cir. 1970); Wright v. St John’s Hospital, 414 F.Supp. 1202 (N.D.Okla.1976); Seibert v. McCracken, 387 F.Supp. 275 (E.D. Okla.1974). … See Crosswhite v. Brown, supra; Seibert v. McCracken, supra.

Opinion No. (1979)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 26, 1979

If the school board voted to allow the media to attend the meeting, would the board be liable if the press were in attendance at the meeting and reported the proceedings? … Munley v. ISC Financial House, Inc., Okla. 584 P.2d 1336 (1978).

In Re Initiative Petition No. 27 of Oklahoma City

74 O.B.A.J. 3490 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 9, 2003

(Board) would be convened. … Brazell v. Zeigler, 1910 OK 193 , 110 P. 1052 ; Fite v. Lacey, 1984 OK 83, ¶ 16 , 691 P.2d 901, 904 ; See Okla. Const. art. XVIII, § 4(a).

Price v. Oklahoma College of Osteopathic Medicine & Surgery

733 P.2d 1357 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1986

Foster v. … White v.

Gasaway v. Page

448 P.2d 284 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 1968

In Brown v. State, Okl.Cr., 384 P.2d 54 , this court held: “The Oklahoma statute providing that the defendant must in all cases be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay, should be strictly followed.” … Brown v. State, supra. The determination of an unnecessary delay which would constitute denial of substantial rights depends on the circumstances and facts of each case. Lut-trell v. Freeman, Okl.Cr., 444 P.2d 857 .

Andrews v. Proctor

196 Okla. 272 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1945

See, also, State v. … Also, see Honnold v. Board of Commissioners of Carter Co., 71 Okla. 71 , 177 P. 71 . In view of the above decisions we are of the opinion that the petition states a cause of action and that, the demurrers of O. P.

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

170 Okla. 123 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 1934

See Bristow Battery Co. v. Payne, 123 Okla. 137 , 252 P. 423 ; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. … The issue raised on this point is fully decided in the recent case of Excise Board of Stephens County v. Chicago, B. I. & P.

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 10, 1971

Vance, 35 P.2d 896 (Okl. 1934); Wilson v. Moran, 197 P. 1051 (Okl. 1921). Or, stated differently, he who asserts an affirmative has the burden of proving it. Trademen's National Bank of Oklahoma City v. … The case of Cupps, Appellee v. City of Toledo, et al., Appellants, 18 Ohio Opinions 2nd Series 82 (Ohio 1961) arrives at the same conclusion under like reasoning.

Opinion No. 77-301 (1978) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 28, 1978

Railroad Company v. State, 119 P. 117 (1911). Statutes must be reasonably and sensibly construed in preference to construction which renders all or part of the statutes useless. Tannehill v. … It is also apparent that with the authority vested in said Board by the Legislature, by virtue of 82 O.S. 934 [82-934](c), it is incumbent upon the Board to take action when it discovers that pollution abatement programs

Sutherland v. Taintor

57 Okla. 292 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 28, 1916

,” and authorizes a review of his action by the whole board upon an appeal or upon the board’s own motion. … The conclusions here reached are not in conflict with Welch v. Bohart, 40 Okla. 439 , 135 Pac. 1065 . In the first place, although the reporter has cited section 7186 and section 7187, Rev.

Bassett v. Mitchell

3 Okla. 177 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 7, 1895

In Twine v. Carey, decided by this court ( 2 Okla. … As stated in Twine v.

Opinion No. 69-123 (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 5, 1969

In the case of Hewitt v. … Also in Connally v.

Opinion No. 70-246 (1970) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 14, 1970

That is to say, Chase v. … Both Murray v. State, supra, and Chase v.

State Ex Rel. Dillard v. Gassaway

142 Okla. 140 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 1930

Thereafter, Vada Dillard, by her attorneys, Brown & Brown, filed in the district court of Atoka county, Okla., a motion in which she alleged that Cub E. Dillard had taken said car out of Carter county, Okla. … In Chivers v.

Scheutz v. Dossey Lumber Co.

195 Okla. 439 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 10, 1945

The rule that is applicable to the consideration on appeal of .records and orders such as these is stated in Beveridge v. … There are cases, and Scheutz cites them, including Anderson-Kerr, Inc., v.

Union Graded School District No. 5 v. Ford

169 Okla. 410 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 30, 1934

It is apparent that athletic supplies cannot be considered to come within the appropriations designated above by the excise board. In the case of Dougherty-Nichols Construction Co. v. … goods, for the reason that no, appropriation had been made by the excise board for such athletic goods. The court should have sustained defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence.

Opinion No. (2006)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 20, 2006

No. 1 v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 674 P.2d 547 , 550 (Okla. 1983) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). … Every county has a Board of Tax Roll Corrections, consisting of the chair of the Board of County Commissioners, the chair of the County Equalization Board, the county assessor, and the county clerk as a non-voting member

Opinion No. (2010)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 8, 2010

Jackson v. … Gardner , 611 P.2d 1207 , 1211 (Utah 1980); Bickford v. Jacobson , 558 P.2d 292 , 296 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976); Scharn v. Ecker , 218 N.W.2d 478 , 480 (S.D. 1974); Gilbert v.

Opinion No. (1992)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 28, 1992

Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 977 P.2d 1331 , 1334 (Okla. 1989), quoting Oklahoma City v. Shields, 100 P. 559 , 576 (Okla. 1908). … See, e.g., Eckles v. State, 760 P.2d 846 (Ore. 1988); State v. Yelle, 25 P.2d 569 (Wash. 1933). See also Dadisman v.