Case law

Opinion No. 76-258 (1976) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 12, 1976

Following the rule regarding statutory construction and legislative intent set out in Stemmons, Inc. v. Universal C.I.T. … The principle of this rule of statutory construction is followed in Oliver v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 359 P.2d 183 (1960).

Ray v. Stevenson

71 Okla. Crim. 339 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 1941

extent as if the new members as such board had made the contract and no further.” *351 See, also, Warner v. … City of Guymon, 176 Okla. 419 , 55 P. 2d 969 ; Board of Education of City of Bartlesville v. Schmidt, 111 Okla. 277 , 239 P. 580 ; State v. Sowards, 64 Okla. Cr. 430 , 82 P. 2d 324 .

Ex Parte Hand

13 Okla. Crim. 614 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1917

Leighnor was appointed to the office of justice of the peace by the board of trustees of said town, and riot by the board of county commissioners of the county. … the town or by the board of county commissioners.

Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Fugatt

47 Okla. 727 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 13, 1915

One trunk, it appears, was brown, *729 the other black, while the glove telescope was of light color. … Scarcely a train' travels the state but there is on board a number of traveling salesmen, accompanied by their sample cases or trunks, as the case may be.

Anderson v. Walker

333 P.2d 570 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 17, 1958

Co. v. Excise Board of Garfield County, 167 Ok. 414, 30 P.2d 171 ; Herndon v. Anderson, 165 Okl. 104 , 25 P.2d 326 ; Morrison v. Fry, 208 Okl. 239 , 255 P.2d 270 ; Lowden v. … Board of Commissioners of Harmon County, 161 Okl. 245 , 17 P.2d 690 ; Excise Board of Kay County v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 155 Okl. 34 , 7 P.2d 902 .

Tri-State Casualty Ins. Co. v. LaFON

205 Okla. 293 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 9, 1951

Later, a similar question arose in Provenzano v. … This court had, in 1932, some fourteen years prior to that time, in Ponca City Board of Education v.

Opinion No. 68-281 (1968) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 6, 1968

The Board may then adopt the proposed regulations or refer them both to the Commission for further consideration." … Symonds v. Bucklin, Maryland, 197 F. Supp. 682 . Windsor v. Whitby, 95 Conn. 357 , 111 A. 354 ., 12 A.L.R. 669 .

Salyer v. Jackson

105 Okla. 212 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 30, 1924

In Mean v. Callison, 28 Okla. … The powers of the board of county commissioners, delegated by Comp. Stat. 1921, sec. 5793, are to be exercised by the board in regular, adjourned or special sessions.

Walton v. State

594 P.2d 794 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 26, 1979

At the hearing, Officer Brown testified that sometime after the waiver had been executed, defendant informed him that he had taken some Valiums. … See McCoy v. State, Okl.Cr., 534 P.2d 1317 (1975), Henson v. State, Okl.Cr., 522 P.2d 299 (1974) and Cooper v. State, Okl.Cr., 560 P.2d 1018 (1977). We therefore find this assignment of error to be without merit.

Opinion No. 73-129 (1973) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 13, 1973

In Pierce v. … The Supreme Court of Kansas considered a similar question in Crevhon, et al. v. Board of Education of City of Parsons, 163 P. 145 .

Opinion No. 49-0509 Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 9, 1949

** LUMP SUM APPROPRIATIONS — STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS — CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ** HE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HAS VOTED TO APPROPRIATE A LUMP SUM TO THE STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS TO BE USED BY SAID BOARD … — AFFIRMATIVE (GOVERNOR'S CONTINGENCY FUND) CITE: ARTICLE V, SECTION 55 (FRED HANSEN)

Opinion No. (1999)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 9, 1999

See, e.g., City of Birmingham v. Hawkins, 94 So. 62 , 65 (Ala. 1922); Nichols v. Galveston County, 228 S.W. 547 , 548 (Tex. 1921); and Chemical Bank Trust Co. v. Oakland County, 251 N.W. 395 , 400 (Mich. 1933). … See Oklahoma State Election Board v. Coats, 610 P.2d 776 , 778-79 (Okla. 1980).

Appeal of Moore

492 P.2d 1091 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 11, 1972

Petitioner relies primarily upon the principles applied in Board of County Commissioners v. Litton, Okl., 315 P.2d 239 (1957). … Firemen’s Relief and Pension Board v. Ozment, Okl., 467 P.2d 502 (1970), we held that this and similar provisions indicated a specific legislative intent to allow retired firemen to be re-employed.

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

157 Okla. 131 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 3, 1932

Bowling v. Merry, 91 Okla. 176 , 217 P. 404 ; Hawkins v. Bryan, 128 Okla. 27 , 261 P. 167 ; Orth v. Hajek, 127 Okla. 50 ; 259 P. 854 ; Greer v. McNeal, 11 Okla. 519 , 69 P. 891 ; Hocker v. … We-held in a recent case, No. 21386, County Excise Board of Creek County v.

CAPRON v. SIXSMITH

2023 OK CIV APP 25 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 26, 2023

Johnson v. Snow , , ¶8, . "Under this standard, we have plenary, independent, and nondeferential authority to determine whether the trial court erred in its legal ruling." Fanning v. Brown , , ¶8, . … Fairlawn Cemetery Ass'n v. First Presbyterian Church , ¶14, . Permission to enter another's property may be either express or implied. Brown v. Nicholson , , ¶6, .

Scroggins v. State

91 Okla. Crim. 428 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1950

Littlejohn v. State, 32 Okla. Cr. 401 , 241 P. 210 . A case clearly in point is Brown v. State, 33 Okla. … Further, in quoting from Martin v.

Finley v. Territory of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Keys

12 Okla. 621 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 8, 1903

In People v. … In People v.

Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Milam

45 Okla. 742 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 2, 1915

Co. v. Caple’s Adm’x, 110 Va. 514 , 66 S. … It is also held in Payne v. McCormick Harv.

Question Submitted by: Ashley Plyushko, Executive Director, Oklahoma Accountancy Board

2025 OK AG 16 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 4, 2025

See 18 O.S.2021, § 802 See Sanders v. … See , e.g. , Rickard v.

Opinion No. 78-118 (1978) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 15, 1978

No Board, commission, department, program or office whose expenditure of funds for salaries and wages has been limited by legislative action shall exceed the amount unless approval is first granted by the Board." … However, to read the above subsection as authority for powers not specifically enumerated in Section 3603 would be contrary to a basic rule of statutory construction found in American First Title and Trust Company v.