Kansas, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Pruitt
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1DissentGibson, J.
The law announced in the syllabus is contrary to our holding in Frederick Cotton Oil & Mfg. Co. v. Clay, 50 Okla. 123, 150 P. 451; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brooks, 57 Okla. 163, 156 P. 362; Sanders v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 66 Okla. 313, 169 P. 891; Whitehead Coal & Mining Co. v. Winton, 107 Okla. 99, 230 P. 509; White v. McGee, 157 Okla. 204, 11 P. 2d 924; Oklahoma City v. Richardson, 180 Okla. 314, 69 P. 2d 334; Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Spiva, 183 Okla. 253, 80 P. 2d 941.
The statute under which this action was brought was taken by us verbatim from the State of Kansas. The…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- City of Eureka v. MerrifieldSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. FlowersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. BrooksSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Frederick Cotton Oil & Mfg. Co. v. ClaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Oklahoma City v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.