prescribed standard in Oklahoma

1997In Cargle , this Court prescribed an instruction to be used in all future cases. 909 P.2d. at 828 .

1997In Cargle , this Court prescribed an instruction to be used in all future cases. 909 P.2d. at 828 .

1964In the Harrington case, supra, we further held that where the value of the property destroyed by the fire exceeds the amount paid by the insurance company, the insured may sue in his own name against 4he wrongdoer for himself and for the benefit of the insurance company for the .amount paid by it, and that: “Where the value of the property destroyed does not exceed the loss paid, this rule does not apply, because the .assured, oivner zvould no longer have .any interest in the cause of action, and while the suit may be brought in the name of the assured for the use and benefit of the insurer, s

1964In the Harrington case, supra, we further held that where the value of the property destroyed by the fire exceeds the amount paid by the insurance company, the insured may sue in his own name against 4he wrongdoer for himself and for the benefit of the insurance company for the .amount paid by it, and that: “Where the value of the property destroyed does not exceed the loss paid, this rule does not apply, because the .assured, oivner zvould no longer have .any interest in the cause of action, and while the suit may be brought in the name of the assured for the use and benefit of the insurer, s

1949Cr. 33 , 287 P. 776 , it was said: “Reasonable ordinance regulations providing for the inspection of milk sold within the corporate limits and forbidding its sale when below a prescribed standard, and authorizing its summary destruction, if found to be impure, and levying a reasonable license fee for the privilege of distributing such milk in accordance with such standards, is valid and constitutional as within the police powers of cities of the first class in this state.” In Stephens v. Oklahoma City, 150 Okla. 199 , 1 P. 2d 367 , this court said: “A municipal ordinance classifying milk deale

1949Cr. 33 , 287 P. 776 , it was said: “Reasonable ordinance regulations providing for the inspection of milk sold within the corporate limits and forbidding its sale when below a prescribed standard, and authorizing its summary destruction, if found to be impure, and levying a reasonable license fee for the privilege of distributing such milk in accordance with such standards, is valid and constitutional as within the police powers of cities of the first class in this state.” In Stephens v. Oklahoma City, 150 Okla. 199 , 1 P. 2d 367 , this court said: “A municipal ordinance classifying milk deale

1949Cr. 33 , 287 P. 776 , it was said: “Reasonable ordinance regulations providing for the inspection of milk sold within the corporate limits and forbidding its sale when below a prescribed standard, and authorizing its summary destruction, if found to be impure, and levying a reasonable license fee for the privilege of distributing such milk in accordance with such standards, is valid and constitutional as within the police powers of cities of the first class in this state.” In Stephens v. Oklahoma City, 150 Okla. 199 , 1 P. 2d 367 , this court said: “A municipal ordinance classifying milk deale

1945Any contention that such purpose or presence could impair such immunity is foreclosed by the holding in Burroughs v. Cooke & Willis, 56 Okla. 627 , 156 P. 196 , which is reflected in paragraph (a) of the first syllabus thereof, as follows: “(a) A nonresident, who comes within the confines of this state for the purpose of attending upon the taking of depositions to be used in the trial of a cause pending in another jurisdiction in which he is one of the litigants, is privileged from service of summons while within the state upon that business, and he does not forfeit this privilege merely becau

1945Any contention that such purpose or presence could impair such immunity is foreclosed by the holding in Burroughs v. Cooke & Willis, 56 Okla. 627 , 156 P. 196 , which is reflected in paragraph (a) of the first syllabus thereof, as follows: “(a) A nonresident, who comes within the confines of this state for the purpose of attending upon the taking of depositions to be used in the trial of a cause pending in another jurisdiction in which he is one of the litigants, is privileged from service of summons while within the state upon that business, and he does not forfeit this privilege merely becau

1930Reasonable ordinance regulations providing for the inspection of milk sold within the corporate limits and forbidding its sale when below a prescribed standard, and authorizing its summary destruction if found to be impure, in accordance with such standards, are uniformly held valid and constitutional, as manifestly within the police power.” Deems v. Baltimore, 80 Md. 164 , 30 A. 648 , 26 R.

1930Reasonable ordinance regulations providing for the inspection of milk sold within the corporate limits and forbidding its sale when below a prescribed standard, and authorizing its summary destruction if found to be impure, in accordance with such standards, are uniformly held valid and constitutional, as manifestly within the police power.” Deems v. Baltimore, 80 Md. 164 , 30 A. 648 , 26 R.

1921In the first place, without overruling the construction placed upon the present gross production law by this court in Large Oil Company v. Howard, 63 Okla. 143 , 163 Pac. 537 , the court holds that, inasmuch as the taxes levied under this act are in lieu of all other taxes and the act further provides that if the tax assessed is greater or less than the tax on the property of said producer would be if taxed upon an ad valorem basis, the State Board of Equalization may lower or raise the rate to make 'the tax conform to 'the prescribed standard, the law does not impose a tax upon the business o

1921In the first place, without overruling the construction placed upon the present gross production law by this court in Large Oil Company v. Howard, 63 Okla. 143 , 163 Pac. 537 , the court holds that, inasmuch as the taxes levied under this act are in lieu of all other taxes and the act further provides that if the tax assessed is greater or less than the tax on the property of said producer would be if taxed upon an ad valorem basis, the State Board of Equalization may lower or raise the rate to make 'the tax conform to 'the prescribed standard, the law does not impose a tax upon the business o