Legal Opinion
Baughman v. Weicker
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided March 26, 1929No. 20020PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCullison, J.
Plaintiff in error whs plaintiff in the trial court; defendant in error was defendant in th'e trial court, and they will be referred to herein as they appeared below.
Plaintiff for his cause of action against • the defendant in his petition filed in the court below, says:
“(1) That during the times hereinafter mentioned, the city of Oklahoma City was, and ever since has continued) to be, and still is, a municipal corporation of th'e state of Oklahoma, and' a body corporate by the name of the city of Oklahoma City, and was duly incorporated under the laws of this state applying to cities of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Crawford v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Munroe v. McNeillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- State ex rel. Forstell v. OtisWashington Supreme Court · 1924
- People v. BallhornAppellate Court of Illinois · 1902
3Cited by7 opinions
- City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1935
- Ajax Contractors, Inc. v. MyattSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
- City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1934
- Opinion No. (2009), Oklahoma Attorney General Reports2009
- Opinion No. 72-112 (1972) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1972
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.