Legal Opinion

Priddy v. City of Tulsa

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided September 26, 1994No. M 93-1263PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ACCELERATED DOCKET ORDER

Appellant was convicted July 13, 1993, in the Municipal Court of the City of Tulsa, Case No. 9464157, of No License to Engage in Business as a Sign Contractor. The Honorable William J. Hiddle fined Appellant $300.00 plus costs. From this Judgment and Sentence, Appellant, pro se, appeals.

The propositions of error raised by Appellant on appeal are:

1. The [Appellant] was arraigned on the initial Information, in citation form, on the charge that the Appellant committed the crime of having “No Permit For Work Performed” — Title 51 — Tulsa Building Code § 2901.5. Appellee’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cryan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1978
  2. Ex Parte Robert DavisCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1941
  3. State v. WiggenjostNebraska Supreme Court · 1936

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gonzales v. StateCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2010
  2. Baker v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
  3. Baker v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
  4. Opinion No. (1999), Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1999
  5. Opinion No. (2008), Oklahoma Attorney General Reports2008

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

Powered by the Exa API