Legal Opinion
Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Grady County
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided April 7, 1936No. 24538PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, J.
This action, of that character commonly referred to as a tax ferret proceeding, was commenced by the county treasurer of Grady county pursuant to section 12346. O. S. 1931, for the purpose of listing and assessing certain property of defendant allegedly omitted from the ad va-lorem tax rolls of that county for certain prior years.
The treasurer, upon a hearing, determined that the defendant possessed no omitted property for the years named, and the state appealed to the county court pursuant to said section 12346. Upon a trial de novo in that court pursuant to section 12348, O. S. 1931,…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- General Oil Co. v. CrainSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Minnesota v. BlasiusSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- American Steel & Wire Co. v. SpeedSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of AgricultureSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Sonleitner v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- State v. Chickasha Milling Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- State v. Prairie Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Coffee v. HenrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
- Coffee v. HenrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010