Legal Opinion

Carter v. Miley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 25, 1940No. 29342PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRiley, J.

In this appealed mandamus action John H. Miley seeks to enforce collection of a $2,500 attorney fee, under contract with the State Highway Commission pursuant to authority, if any, granted by article 10, ch. 50, S. L. 1937, whereby a thirty-five million dollar road note indebtedness was sought to be authorized.

This court, in Boswell v. State, 181 Okla. 435, 74 P. 2d 940, held unconstitutional the attempted issuance of the notes, but expressly reserved the question of payment of this attorney fee. The services were fully performed. This court followed the procedure prescribed in the stated act…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Dorchy v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. Boswell v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
  3. Sterling Refining Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  4. Edwards v. ChildersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  5. State Ex Rel. Roth v. WaterfieldSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Veterans of Foreign Wars v. ChildersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946
  2. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 52 v. HOFMEISTERSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2020
  3. Way v. Grand Lake Ass'n, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981
  4. State Highway Commission v. Green-Boots Const. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1947
  5. The FORTINBERRY CO. v. BlundellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952

3 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