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

  1. Crawford v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1848
  2. Munroe v. McNeillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
  3. State ex rel. Forstell v. OtisWashington Supreme Court · 1924
  4. People v. BallhornAppellate Court of Illinois · 1902

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1935
  2. Ajax Contractors, Inc. v. MyattSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
  3. City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1934
  4. Opinion No. (2009), Oklahoma Attorney General Reports2009
  5. Opinion No. 72-112 (1972) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1972

2 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