Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsagreen2 sentences2014Tulsa Industrial Authority, 2011 OK 57 at ¶¶ 17, 30 , 270 P.3d at 122, 128 . 13 This Court affirmed the trial court's order that denied Taxpayer's motion to intervene as a gui tam plaintiff, but reversed the trial court's order denying a motion to intervene in which Taxpayer sought equitable relief. 2014Tulsa Industrial Authority, 2011 OK 57 at ¶¶ 17, 30 , 270 P.3d at 122, 128 . 13 This Court affirmed the trial court's order that denied Taxpayer's motion to intervene as a gui tam plaintiff, but reversed the trial court's order denying a motion to intervene in which Taxpayer sought equitable relief. | 2 | 2 |
Fent v. Contingency Review Boardgreen2 sentences2025See id. ¶ 8, n. 23, 163 P.3d at 520 (collecting cases concerning the right of a taxpayer to challenge illegal expenditure of public funds). 2025See id. ¶ 8, n. 23, 163 P.3d at 520 (collecting cases concerning the right of a taxpayer to challenge illegal expenditure of public funds). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Henry
green
2 sentences2025As we held in Thomas v. Henry , 2011 OK 53 260 P.3d 1251 ¶15 With respect to Petitioner Waddell's voter standing, ¶16 This Court has previously held that registered voters are often the "most logical" parties to contest legislation which imposes conditions or otherwise inhibits the right to vote. 2025As we held in Thomas v. Henry , 2011 OK 53 260 P.3d 1251 ¶15 With respect to Petitioner Waddell's voter standing, ¶16 This Court has previously held that registered voters are often the "most logical" parties to contest legislation which imposes conditions or otherwise inhibits the right to vote. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Noram Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
green
1 sentence2005Taxpayer appeals that decision. 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 5 “This Court will review the entire record made before an administrative agency acting in its adjudicative capacity to determine whether the findings and conclusions set forth in the agency order are supported by substantial evidence.” In re Excise Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 5, ¶ 5 , 919 P.2d 1151, 1154 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Matter of Excise Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005Taxpayer appeals that decision. 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 5 “This Court will review the entire record made before an administrative agency acting in its adjudicative capacity to determine whether the findings and conclusions set forth in the agency order are supported by substantial evidence.” In re Excise Tax Protest of Arkla, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 5, ¶ 5 , 919 P.2d 1151, 1154 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Magnolia Pipe Line Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
green
2 sentences1953In Magnolia Pipe Line Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 196 Okl. 633 , 167 P.2d 884, 885 , cited by the taxpayer as sustaining the rule above stated, we find that in the third syllabus the following rule is also announced: “In construing ambiguous tax statutes it is the duty of the courts to as.certain and declare the intention of the Legislature, and the statute as thus construed must be applied uniformly to all taxpayers within its purview.” In the first syllabus it is announced that tax statutes will be construed most strongly against the state and in favor of the taxpayer but that rule “is i 1953In Magnolia Pipe Line Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 196 Okl. 633 , 167 P.2d 884, 885 , cited by the taxpayer as sustaining the rule above stated, we find that in the third syllabus the following rule is also announced: “In construing ambiguous tax statutes it is the duty of the courts to as.certain and declare the intention of the Legislature, and the statute as thus construed must be applied uniformly to all taxpayers within its purview.” In the first syllabus it is announced that tax statutes will be construed most strongly against the state and in favor of the taxpayer but that rule “is i | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Kellogg v. School District No. 10 Comanche Co.
green
2 sentences1924The defendants in error rely on *141 Thompson et al. v. Haskell, Governor, 24 Okla. 70 , 102 Pac. 700 , in which case it was said: “When a party seeks the intervention of a court of equity to stay the administration and execution of the law by the executive department of state, he must bring- himself clearly within the rule, and show an irreparable injury or otherwise a clear right thereto, before equity will lend its strong-arm to stay the administration or work of the co-ordinate branch of the government.” In that case, the question under consideration was the right of the taxpayer to mainta 1924The defendants in error rely on *141 Thompson et al. v. Haskell, Governor, 24 Okla. 70 , 102 Pac. 700 , in which case it was said: “When a party seeks the intervention of a court of equity to stay the administration and execution of the law by the executive department of state, he must bring- himself clearly within the rule, and show an irreparable injury or otherwise a clear right thereto, before equity will lend its strong-arm to stay the administration or work of the co-ordinate branch of the government.” In that case, the question under consideration was the right of the taxpayer to mainta | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Thompson v. Haskell
green
2 sentences1924The defendants in error rely on *141 Thompson et al. v. Haskell, Governor, 24 Okla. 70 , 102 Pac. 700 , in which case it was said: “When a party seeks the intervention of a court of equity to stay the administration and execution of the law by the executive department of state, he must bring- himself clearly within the rule, and show an irreparable injury or otherwise a clear right thereto, before equity will lend its strong-arm to stay the administration or work of the co-ordinate branch of the government.” In that case, the question under consideration was the right of the taxpayer to mainta 1924The defendants in error rely on *141 Thompson et al. v. Haskell, Governor, 24 Okla. 70 , 102 Pac. 700 , in which case it was said: “When a party seeks the intervention of a court of equity to stay the administration and execution of the law by the executive department of state, he must bring- himself clearly within the rule, and show an irreparable injury or otherwise a clear right thereto, before equity will lend its strong-arm to stay the administration or work of the co-ordinate branch of the government.” In that case, the question under consideration was the right of the taxpayer to mainta | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.