Legal Opinion

Dowell v. City of Tulsa

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 15, 1954No. 36068PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

/BLACKBIRD, Justice.

Plaintiffs in error commenced the present action, as plaintiffs, to enjoin defendants in error, as defendants, from enforcing and/or complying with Ordinance No. 6565, passed by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tulsa, on March 3, 1953, authorizing fluoridation of said city’s water supply by its Water Department and Commissioner of Waterworks and Sewerage. The purpose of such fluoridation, as indicated in the ordinance, was “to aid in the control of dental caries” (tooth decay), and by reason of the emergency therein declared to exist for, “preservation of the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. West Coast Hotel Co. v. ParrishSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  3. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  4. Blue v. BeachIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Commonwealth v. Town of HudsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. City of Canton v. WhitmanOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Schuringa v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Minn. State Bd. of Health v. City of BrainerdSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  4. Baer v. CITY OF BENDOregon Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Readey v. St. Louis County Water CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1961

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API