Legal Opinion
McAlester Urban Renewal Authority v. Lorince
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided December 4, 1973No. 43831, 43832PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DOOLIN, Justice.
We are presented in these cases with the attack upon the array or panel of veniremen called in Pittsburg County for jury duty; as well as questions as to the competency of witnesses; the application of the reasonable probability test to the highest and best use of the condemned property; and, other kindred matters.
The pertinent facts necessary for the first portion of this opinion reveal the September, 1969, District Court docket in Pittsburg County included several condemnation cases wherein McAlester Urban Renewal Authority (referred to herein as “Authority”) was condemner.…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Boston & Providence Railroad Corp. Stockholders v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Dyal v. NortonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Finley v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
- City of Tulsa v. HorwitzSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Kelly v. Oklahoma Turnpike AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1954
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Madill Bank and Trust Co. v. HerrmannCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
- Nail Ex Rel. Nail v. Oklahoma Children's Memorial HospitalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- Corbell v. State Ex Rel. Department of TransportationCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993
- Parrish v. LillySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Underwood v. State ex rel. Department of TransportationCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.