Case law

School District No. 61 v. Consolidated District No. 2

110 Okla. 263 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 16, 1925

The case of Gallup v. … Co. v.

Gayman, County Treasurer v. Mullen

58 Okla. 477 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 10, 1916

Rep. 94 ; McLaughlin v. Newkirk, 57 N. J. Law, 298, 30 Atl. 543 ; State v. Andrews, 20 Tex. 230 ; Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Shackelford, 63 Cal. 265 ; Swamp Land Drainage District v. … In Bowman v.

Opinion No. (1994)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 1, 1994

YOUR QUESTION ASKS WHETHER A PERSON WHO IS EMPLOYED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY MAY SERVE ON THE BOARD OF THE GRDA AS AN "OFFICER OF A MUNICIPALITY." … SEE ALSO, OLIVER V. CITY OF TULSA, 654 P.2D 607 (OKLA.1982)."

State Ex Rel. Mose v. District Court of Marshall County

46 Okla. 654 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 25, 1915

Co. v. … Morrison v. Brown, Judge, 26 Okla. 201 , 109 Pac. 237 ; Herndon v. Hammond, County Judge, 28 Okla. 616 , 115 Pac. 775 ; Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 U. S. 191 , 31 Sup. Ct. 426, 55 L. Ed. 431 ; State v.

England v. State

29 Okla. Crim. 38 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 17, 1925

Sies v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 142 , 117 P. 504 ; Brown v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 343 , 156 P. 1150 ; Broshears v. State, 17 Okla. Cr. 192 , 187 P. 254 . … Inklebarger v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 316 , 127 P. 707 . Because of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the judgment is reversed. BESSEY, P. J., and DOYLE. J., concur.

Opinion No. (1991)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 7, 1991

City of Tulsa v. Midland Valley R. Co., 168 F.2d 252 , 254 (10th Cir. 1948), citing City of Tulsa v. … Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. Stephens County, Excise Board, 312 P.2d 883 (Okla. 1957).

Buis v. State

792 P.2d 427 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 14, 1990

This line of reasoning has been followed in Brown v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 382 , 132 P. 359 (1913); Ex parte Green, 69 Okl.Cr. 218 , 101 P.2d 641 (1940); Roberts v. … State, 72 Okl.Cr. 384 , 115 P.2d 270 (1941); In re Williams, 341 P.2d 652 (Okl.Cr.1959); Harvell v. State, 395 P.2d 331 (Okl.Cr.1964); Akers v. State, 491 P.2d 363 (Okl.Cr.1971); Coffer v.

Foster v. Robbins

155 Okla. 171 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 23, 1932

Singer v. Ooley, 112 Okla. 28 , 239 P. 594 . … .” *173 To the same effect is Piersol v. State ex rel. County Attorney, 122 Okla. 124 , 254 P. 104 ; Timberlake v. Case, 122 Okla. 275 , 254 P. 724 ; Timberlake v. Norris, 129 Okla. 113 , 263 P. 649 .

McCarter v. State Ex Rel. Pitman, Co.

82 Okla. 78 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 26, 1921

V. Howell, as defendants. … Board of Com’rs of Creek County v. Alexander, 58 Okla. 128 , 159 Pac. 311 ; Hudson v. County Treasurer, Osage County, 75 Okla. 260 , 183 Pac. 507 , In the case of Soliss v.

Busey v. Crump

108 Okla. 73 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 10, 1925

County Attorney and Election Board of Seminole County v. Purported Election Officials of Cromwell, seeking to have the election declared void. … Banta, secretary of the county election board of Seminole county. At the same time, Mr. Banta wrote a letter to Mr.

Frank v. Allstate Insurance Co.

727 P.2d 577 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 31, 1986

In Brown v. United States Auto. … The Court also cited Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Company, 662 P.2d 681 (Okla.1983); Lake v. Wright, 657 P.2d 643 (Okla.1982); Chambers v. Walker, 653 P.2d 931 (Okla.1982); Porter v.

Holland Hall School v. Glass

497 P.2d 763 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 23, 1972

The cited cases are Red v. Johnson, 53 Tex. 284 , and Edmonds v. … Board of Equalization, 179 Neb. 326 , 138 N.W.2d 455 , involving the residence of the principal of a rural parochial boarding school. The Kansas Supreme Court held in Kansas Wesleyan University v.

Opinion No. 72-135 (1972) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 27, 1972

** Summary ** TERM OF FIRST APPOINTEES TO COMMUNITY JUNIOR COLLEGE BOARD A member of an initial community junior college board of trustees will serve a term of at least three hundred and sixty-five days from the effective … Wehran v. Helis, La. App., 152 So.2d 220 . Further, the "year" in law is three hundred and sixty-five calendar days, Ex parte Johnson, 53 Ariz. 161 , 87 P.2d 107 .

Cheek v. Eye

96 Okla. 44 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 9, 1923

Stat. 1921, and cite the case of Kelly v. … This contention is not well taken, as decided by this court in the case of Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Woodworth, 89 Okla. 192 , 214 Pac. 1077 .

Opinion No. 68-302 (1968) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 13, 1968

Tharel v. Board of County Com'rs of Creek County, 188 Okl. 184 , 107 P.2d 542 , determines the answer to your first question. … We feel that it is appropriate — though not necessary in answering your specific questions to call your attention to certain dicta in the case of Headley v.

Independent School District No. 1-2 of Stephens County v. Independent School District No. 1-23 of Jefferson County

553 P.2d 150 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 27, 1976

Board of Ed. of Ind. Sch. D. No. 48, Hughes Cty. v. Rives, Okl., 531 P.2d 335 . … Board of Ed. of Ind. Sch. D. No. 48, Hughes Cty. v. Rives, supra.

Opinion No. (2007)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 20, 2007

Riffe Petroleum Co. v. Great Nat. Corp., Inc. , 614 P.2d 576 , 579 (Okla. 1980). As the Supreme Court of New Mexico observed in State, ex rel . Gonzales v. … Campbell v. Campbell , 450 P.2d 203 , 205 (Okla. 1966).

FARRIS v. MASQUELIER

2022 OK 91 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 15, 2022

Sellars v. … See also Anderson v.

Hagen v. Independent School District No. 1-004

157 P.3d 738 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 3, 2007

Bankoff v. Board of Adjustment, 1994 OK 58 , 875 P.2d 1138, 1148-1144 . The district court's seope of review is unlimited. Abel v. Oklahoma Real Estate Commission, 453 P.2d 1007, 1009 . … Wheeler, Inc. v. Scott, 1991 OK 95 , 818 P.2d 475, 480 ; Loftis v. Collins, 1966 OK 94 , 415 P.2d 927 . See also, Andrews v. Independent Sch. Dist.

Opinion No. (1994)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 26, 1994

THE STATUTORY DUTY OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO MANAGE THE BUSINESS AND AFFAIRS OF THE COOPERATIVE IS MORE LIKE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION. … A CASE SIMILAR TO THE SITUATION POSED IS SCHOENBAUM V. ORANGE COUNTY CENTER FOR PERFORMING ARTS.