Legal Opinion

Morrison v. Fry

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided March 24, 1953No. 35334PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, V.C.J.

The plaintiffs in error and defendants in error occupy the same relative positions here as in the trial court and hereafter they will be referred to as they there appeared.

There is no dispute as to the facts, as the parties herein submitted the cause to the court upon an agreed statement as to the facts involved, which are substantially that the plaintiffs are the court reporters in the court of common pleas of Tulsa county, Oklahoma; that they instituted this action in mandamus to compel the court clerk, the board of county commissioners and excise board of Tulsa county,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Herndon v. AndersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  2. Cotham v. CoffmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
  3. Colbert v. BondTennessee Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Lowden v. Oklahoma County, Excise BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
  5. Bell v. CrumSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Nesbitt v. District Court of Mayes CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1968
  2. North Side State Bank v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
  3. Haas v. HollomanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1958
  4. Anderson v. WalkerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1958
  5. Goeppinger v. McIntoshSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1962

1 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