Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In Re State Treasury Note Indebtedness

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided April 24, 1939No. 29179Published

1Concurrence

HURST, ,T.

(specially concurring). I concur in the conclusion. Those who purchased the notes to be refunded had a right to rely on our prior decisions, and the credit and honor of the state require that we follow those decisions in the instant case. However, I am of the opinion that those decisions (In re Application of State to Issue Bonds to Fund Indebtedness, 1912, 33 Okla. 797, 127 P. 1065; In re Application of State to Issue Bonds to Fund Indebtedness, 1913, 40 Okla. 145, 136 P. 1104; In re State Funding Bonds of 1935, Series A, 1935, 173 Okla. 622, 50 P.2d 221; In re State Funding Bonds…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Boswell v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
  2. Nougues v. DouglassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
  3. In re State to Issue Bonds to Fund IndebtednessSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  4. State Budget Commission v. LebusCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
  5. People ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856

4 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