Court Opinion

ID: 3819272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 07:54:46.42456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:59.433441
License: Public Domain

This is a companion case to the case of Walter H. Gant, Knox L. Garvin, and A.D. Hudspeth, Plaintiffs in Error, v. City of Oklahoma City et al., Defendants in Error, No. 21798, decided this day, 150 Okla. 86, ___ Pac. ___, the difference being that the locality is slightly different, but the wells are in the corporate limits of Oklahoma City, and are subject to the same regulations.
On the authority of Gant et al. v. Oklahoma City et al., No. 21798, 150 Okla. 86, ___ Pac. ___, this case is affirmed.
LESTER, C. J., and CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and McNEILL, JJ., concur. RILEY and HEFNER, JJ., absent. CLARK, V. C. J., dissents.