Incorporated Town of Bristow v. City of Sapulpa

3 Citing cases

  1. City of Tecumseh v. City of Shawnee

    148 Okla. 128 (Okla. 1931)   Cited 8 times

    " The plaintiff cites the decisions of this court in City of Tecumseh v. City of Shawnee, 33 Okla. 494, 126 P. 440; Town of Grove v. Haskell, 24 Okla. 707, 104 P. 56; Incorporated Town of Ryan v. Town of Waurika, 29 Okla. 655, 119 P. 220; Incorporated Town of Bristow v. City of Sapulpa, 33 Okla. 484, 126 P. 446: 20 Corpus Juris 186; and four Canadian decisions. We do not consider it necessary to discuss the Canadian decisions or the text in Corpus Juris further than to say that that text deals with bribery, which is not shown by the record in this case, and the portion relied upon by the plaintiff is in conflict with the established rule in this state.

  2. Terry v. Sencindiver

    153 W. Va. 651 (W. Va. 1969)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that absent a showing of a contrary intent, the word "shall . . . should be afforded a mandatory connotation"

    * * * Frequently, where there has been an undeterminable but considerable number of illegal votes cast in a precinct, and particularly where there is accompanying fraud or disregard of election laws, the entire vote of the precinct has been rejected in determining the result of the election." See Sailor v. Rankin, 125 Ark. 557, 189 S.W. 357; People ex rel. Hardacre v. Davidson, 2 Cal.App. 100, 83 P. 161; Hayes v. Abney, 186 Miss. 208, 188 So. 533; Bristow v. Sapulpa, 33 Okla. 484, 126 P. 446; Hughes v. Blackwell, 161 S.C. 445, 159 S.E. 785; Nelson v. Sneed, 112 Tenn. 36, 83 S.W. 786; Re Donahay's Election, 21 N.J. Misc. 360, 34 A.2d 299; Annotation, 155 A.L.R. 677 et seq. In accordance with the principles herein stated and the authorities cited all of the votes cast in said Precinct No. 38 for the office of Judge of the 31st Judicial Circuit must be rejected and shall not be counted in determining the result of that election.

  3. Reid v. City of Muskogee

    278 P. 339 (Okla. 1929)   Cited 15 times
    In Reid v. City of Muskogee, 137 Okla. 44, 278 P. 339, it does not appear that the town council, as a town council, took any part in the campaign argument in support of the bond issue.

    The principal contention of plaintiffs, as disclosed by their petition and the evidence offered in support thereof, seems to be that certain improper and unlawful inducements were offered to the voters in order to enlist their support for the bonds, and that same amounted to bribery, and therefore vitiated the election. In support of this contention plaintiffs cite and quote at length from the city of Tecumseh v. City of Shawnee, 33 Okla. 494, 126 P. 440, Incorporated Town of Bristow v. City of Sapulpa, 33 Okla. 484, 126 P. 446, and Incorporated Town of Ryan v. Town of Waurika, 29 Okla. 655, 119 P. 220. We have examined each of these cases, and find that they were contests involving location of county seats, and it was held that the offering of certain inducements to the voters constituted bribery by reason of the provisions of section 7, article 17, of the Constitution. It is readily apparent that these cases are not in point here, because the holding therein as to what constituted bribery of voters was based squarely upon the above-mentioned provision of the Constitution, which applies exclusively in county seat elections, and therefore has no application here.