Legal Opinion

Dunlap v. Williamson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 20, 1962No. 39590PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BERRY, Justice.

We will herein refer to the parties to-this appeal thus: Errett Dunlap, Jn, and A. E. Ewell, Jr., plaintiffs in error, as “plaintiffs”; the City of Ardmore, defendant in error, as “city”; the City Council1 of Ardmore, George B. Selvidge, Mayor of Ardmore, Robert C. Cavins, City Manager of Ardmore, and Tom H. Hefley, City Clerk of Ardmore, defendants in error, as “defendants”. Mac Q. Williamson, as Attorney General, approved the bond issue in controversy prior to institution of this action. The parties appear to agree that the Attorney General was neither a necessary nor proper…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. City of Ardmore v. State Ex Rel. BestSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  2. Ratliff v. State Ex Rel. WoodsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
  3. Ruth v. Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  4. Hughes v. City of SapulpaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  5. Oklahoma Utilities Co. v. City of HominySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Umholtz v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
  2. Green v. County Council of Sussex CountyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1980
  3. Arterburn v. SummersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1962
  4. Opinion, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1981
  5. Opinion No. 76-210 (1976) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1976

1 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