Tulsa Street Ry. Co. v. State Industrial Commission
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
LOGSDON, C.
Only one question is material for consideration in the disposition of this case, and that is whether the Industrial Commission wias legally authorized to entertain the proceeding for review commenced December 24, 1923. The Attorney General in hiS' brief has, with commendable frankness, virtually confessed error in the case. His language is this:
“Now, in our consideration of this matter ithe question here pertinent is: Was the petition or motion for a review of the award filed December 24, 1923, based on the statutory ground of a change in conditions? Very frankly, we…
2Cited by7 opinions
- White Oak Refining Co. v. WhiteheadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. KinseyArizona Supreme Court · 1944
- Standard Paving Co. v. LemmonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- Roxana Petroleum Corp. v. HornbergerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Oak v. BarrSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.