Legal Opinion

Perkins v. City of Pawhuska

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 9, 1924No. 14818 and 14816PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

LOGSDON, C.

Plaintiff's arguments and authorities for a reversal of this case are presented in his brief under ten propositions. His first proposition quesr tions the jurisdiction of the city of Paw-huska and its board of commissioners to proceed with the paving at the time the contract was let on October 27, 1921, his two contentions being that there was no jurisdictional resolution of necessity in force at that time, but if there was, then the contract was not -let on the basis of the preliminary specifications and estimates of the city engineer.

It is conceded that whatever was…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Heman v. GilliamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Kerker v. BocherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  3. City of Muskogee v. RamboSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
  4. Haarstick v. GabrielSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
  5. City of Tulsa v. WestonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Edmonds v. Town of HaskellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
  2. Bocox v. Town of BixbySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
  3. City of Beggs v. KellySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  4. Decker v. Ponca CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
  5. McKnight v. Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933

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