Colclazier v. Simpson
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
MAXBY, C.
We have examined the agreed statement of facts upon which this case was tried, and also the briefs presented by the respective counsel, and have examined the record, especially those parts that were attached to the agreed statement of facts. The briefs narrow the question, for us to decide down to two- or three propositions. The first is that defendant in error contends that the condemnation proceedings were void for want of notice. To this pro-position we cannot agree. Under the Act of Congress, approved February -28, 1902, commonly known as the Enid arid Anadarko Act, the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Denver & Rio Grande Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Hathaway v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Continental Gin Co. v. De BordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Kindred v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. MannSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Allen v. Transok Pipe Line CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1976
- Morse v. Board of Com'rs of Marshall CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- City of Seminole v. FieldsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- State ex rel. Department of Highways v. GosselinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1972