TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Elk City Cotton Oil Co. v. Lunsford

ELK CITY COTTON OIL CO. v. LUNSFORD Et Al.

Elk City Cotton Oil Co. v. Lunsford, 1937 OK 34, 64 P.2d 858
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 26, 1937
Docket
No. 27641.
Judges
Osborn, Welch, Phelps, Corn, Hurst
Citations
64 P.2d 8581937 OK 34179 Okla. 381937 Okla. LEXIS 672

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

On December 17, 1936, petitioner filed this original proceeding for writ of prohibition, in which it ■ is alleged that on the 3rd day of October, 1936, the State Industrial Commission entered its order denying an award to J. M. Vinson and that a copy of the award was mailed to the parties affected thereby on the 28th day of October, 1936. That on November 27, 1936, the State Industrial Commission set aside the award of October 3, 1936, and entered an order in favor of the claimant; that such action is illegal and in violation of rule 30 of the State Industrial Commission.

The writ must be denied. We have held that prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be resorted to when ordinary and usual remedies provided by law are available and adequate. Halliburton v. Williams, 166 Okla. 248 , 27 P. (2d) 360 ; Albright v. Election Board of Payne County, 172 Okla. 162 , 44 P. (2d) 995 .

In Nu-Way Laundry v. Wilson, 165 Okla. 149 , 25 P. (2d) 657 , it is stated:

“The State Industrial Commission has jurisdiction to review its award or decision upon its own motion or upon the application of any party affected and to vacate and set aside an award or decision at. any time within 30 days after a copy of such award or decision has been sent by said commission to the parties affected. In the absence of a change in conditions, such jurisdiction ceased at the expiration of that time. Rule 30 of the State Industrial Commission, limiting the time for the filing of a petition for rehearing to T5' days from the' date of' the award or decision, is in conflict therewith, and is ineffective and void.”

See, also, Oklahoma Pipe Line Co. v. State Ind. Com., 149 Okla. 162 , 299 P. 180 ; Derr v. Weaver, 167 Okla. 314 , 29 P. (2d) 97 .

The writ is denied.

OSBORN, O. J., and WELCH, PHELPS, CORN, and HURST, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 11989: 119652026peak 1965 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bill Hodges Truck Co. v. Gillum1989 OK 86, 774 P.2d 1063
  2. Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Heller401 P.2d 184 (Okla. 1965)

Most recent

  1. Bill Hodges Truck Co. v. Gillum1989 OK 86, 774 P.2d 1063
  2. Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Heller401 P.2d 184 (Okla. 1965)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Halliburton v. Williams, 1933 OK 637, 27 P.2d 360 15
Okla. Pipe Line Co. v. State Indus. Com., 1931 OK 229, 299 P. 180 12
Albright v. Election Bd. of Payne Cnty., 1935 OK 505, 44 P.2d 995 4
Derr v. Weaver, 1933 OK 670, 29 P.2d 97 4
Nu-Way Laundry v. Wilson, 1933 OK 513, 25 P.2d 657 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list