Legal Opinion

Seibold v. City of Muskogee

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided November 15, 1932No. 21460PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHefner, J.

This is an action brought in the district court of Muskogee county by George W. Seibold and others, owning property in the city of Muskogee, against that city and Gravelle & Hamblin, paving contractors, to cancel certain paving assessments levied against their property, and to enjoin the city from issuing paving bonds against such assessments. The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs have appealed, and assert that the judgment is contrary to law.

Their main contention is that defendant city' refused to give them a hearing on their protest against the appraisement and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Morrow v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  2. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  3. Hochfeld v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Stoner v. City Council of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
  5. Grier v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ambrister v. City of NormanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1959
  2. Wright v. City of El RenoSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
  3. Opinion No. 74-140 (1974) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API