Legal Opinion
In Re Bucher
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided March 7, 1933No. 24365PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBusby, J.
The facts in this case are not disputed. The record discloses that Dave Bucher, county attorney of Garfield county, filed his claim for the sum of $291.(57 for services rendered as county attorney during the month of April, 1932. This amount he claimed was due him by virtue of the provision of section 6461, O. O. S. 1921 (section 8010, O. S. 1931), which section of the statutes according to its terms prescribes the salary of certain county officers in counties having a population of not less than 37,199 and not more than 37,750, as shown by the last federal census. The payment of tins claim…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Black v. GeisslerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Vette v. ChildersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Wade v. Board of Com'rs of Harmon CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
- Broadwell v. Board of Com'rs of Bryan Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- State Ex Rel. Cruce v. CeaseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- State Ex Rel. v. Board of County Com'rsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
- State Ex Rel. Nesbitt v. District Court of Mayes CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1968
- May v. City of LaramieWyoming Supreme Court · 1942
- Haas v. HollomanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1958
- Anderson v. WalkerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1958
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.