Legal Opinion
Oldfield v. City of Tulsa
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 22, 1935No. 23116PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Per curiam
B. R. Oldfield, plaintiff in error, was plaintiff below, and city -of Tulsa, a municipal corporation, defendant in error, was defendant below; and for convenience the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
The plaintiff commenced his action in the court of common pleas of Tulsa county. Okla., by filing his petition in which he alleged that he was engaged as a barber in the c-ty of Tulsa, Okla., for a long time prior to July 25, 1930, his business address being 103 North Main street in Tulsa, Okla.
That! on or about that date, the defendant, in the exercise of its…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Rigney v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
- Chicago v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- City of Winchester v. RingIllinois Supreme Court · 1924
- Iron City Automobile Co. v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. FisterCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1963
- Labberton v. General Casualty Co. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1958
- Woods Petroleum Corp. v. Delhi Gas Pipeline Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. PrigmoreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- State Ex Rel. City of Ardmore v. WintersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1945
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.