Board of Com'rs of Carter County v. Dorough

5 Citing cases

  1. Box v. State Election Board of Oklahoma

    1974 OK 104 (Okla. 1974)   Cited 14 times
    In Box, the principal issue was one of fact β€” whether Box had been a resident for six months before the beginning of the filing period β€” and this Court decided that question in his favor.

    "Although ordinarily mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of the duty of an officer when such discharge of the duty requires an exercise of official judgment and discretion, and the particular duty is not a purely ministerial duty; yet the writ may be issued to correct an abuse of discretion or to compel action, where the action taken or the refusal to act is arbitrary, even though the officer is vested with judgment and discretion in the performance of the specific duty." This highway commission case, supra, was cited along with other Oklahoma authority in Board of Com'rs of Carter County v. Dorough, 177 Okla. 346, 59 P.2d 273 (1936) with that rule of law again announced in a syllabus by the court in exactly the same language as quoted above. Upon the finding of (a) abuse of discretion or (b) an arbitrary act, this court has also granted a writ of mandamus as to discretionary acts of a city clerk, an attorney general, and the board of equalization.

  2. Jewett v. Williams

    84 Idaho 93 (Idaho 1962)   Cited 25 times
    In Jewitt v. Williams, 84 Idaho 93, 369 P.2d 590 (1962), a unanimous Court overruled Pyke and adopted Chief Justice Sullivan's dissent.

    If there be other decisions, or portions thereof in conflict herewith, though not listed, they likewise are overruled. See also: State ex rel. Schneider v. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 165, 101 P. 962; State ex rel. Jones v. Erickson, 75 Mont. 429, 244 P. 287; Dufton v. Daniels, 190 Cal. 577, 213 P. 949; Board of Com'rs of Carter County v. Dorough, 177 Okl. 346, 59 P.2d 273; Bailey on Habeas Corpus and Special Remedies, Β§ 230, p. 950; Anno. 5 A.L.R. 572; 34 Am.Jur., Mandamus, Β§ 170, p. 944; 55 C.J.S. Mandamus Β§ 145, p. 255, which uphold our views herein expressed. Pyke v. Steunenberg, 5 Idaho 614, 51 P. 614; Bragaw v. Gooding, 14 Idaho 288, 94 P. 438; Curtis v. Moore, 38 Idaho 193, 221 P. 133; Gem Irrigation District v. Gallett, 43 Idaho 519, 253 P. 128.

  3. Board of Trustees of Firemen's Relief & Pension Fund v. Cotton

    1953 OK 110 (Okla. 1953)   Cited 5 times

    Consideration of the granting of this relief is subject to the trial court's legal and equitable discretion. See State ex rel. H.F. Wilcox Oil Gas Co. v. Walker, 168 Okla. 543, 35 P.2d 269; Board of County Com'rs of Carter County v. Dorough, 177 Okla. 346, 59 P.2d 273; Marland, Gov., v. Hoffman, 184 Okla. 591, 89 P.2d 287. The trial court found defendant's actions as respected plaintiff's pension claim constituted an arbitrary and erroneous abuse of discretion.

  4. Payne, County Treas., v. Jones

    193 Okla. 609 (Okla. 1944)   Cited 47 times
    In Payne v. Jones, 193 Okla. 609, 146 P.2d 113, 118, we said that the power to issue injunctions should be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and only in cases reasonably free from doubt.

    The Attorney General, who represents the county treasurer pursuant to direction from the Governor, without agreeing that they have become moot, objects to dismissal and urges that, since they involve important public questions affecting the collection of taxes and the jurisdiction of the courts to enjoin the holding of tax resales, and since the cases have been fully briefed and orally argued, they should be decided on their merits. He calls our attention to Dove v. Oglesby, 114 Okla. 144, 244 P. 798, and Board of County Commissioners v. Dorough, 177 Okla. 346, 59 P.2d 273, which support his views on this question. The record is not clear that the appeals have become moot, but assuming that they have, we are of the opinion, and hold, that since they involve questions of vital public concern, at least one of which has not been decided by this court, and as to another there is a conflict in our decisions, we have not lost jurisdiction and should dispose of the cases on their merits.

  5. Andrews v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety

    39 P.3d 818 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    However, the establishment of the regional salary schedule would require the exercise of official judgment and discretion; therefore, Employees were not and are not entitled to a writ directing State to adopt a particular regional salary schedule. Bd. of Com'rs of Carter Co. v. Dorough, 1936 OK 454, 177 Okla. 346, 59 P.2d 273, 275. Because Employees were only entitled to a writ directing State to act and decide and the statute requiring that action and decision has now been repealed, Employees' request for a writ of mandamus is moot. ΒΆ 9 The statute regulated the manner in which Lake Patrol salaries were to be set. Nothing in the statute either explicitly or implicitly indicated the Legislature intended to create a private remedy for its violation.