Cases

BERRY, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from an order of the State Board of Equalization, which denied Home-Stake Production Company’s protest against a 1966 ad valorem tax levy upon personal property, a gas pipeline extending approximately 6 miles from a well to a truck pipeline, in Payne County, Oklahoma. In October 1961 the Oklahoma Tax Commission, herein the Commission, made written inquiry co

77 F.3d 1215 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,056, 33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1389 Ivan A. ANIXTER; Blanche Dickenson; Dolly K. Yoshida, onbehalf of themselves and all others similarlysituated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.HOME-STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation;Home-Stake 1971 Program Operating Corporation; Home-Stake1970 Program Operating Corporation; Home-Stake 1969 ProgramOperating Corporation;

416 P.2d 917 (1966) HOME-STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. No. 41467. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. June 14, 1966. Rehearing Denied July 19, 1966. Application for Leave to File Second Petition for Rehearing Denied August 2, 1966. Thoma

348 S.C. 58 (2001) 558 S.E.2d 902 Robert W. BINKLEY and Susan B. Binkley, Respondents, v. RABON CREEK WATERSHED CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF FOUNTAIN INN, South Carolina, Appellant. Robert W. Binkley and Susan B. Binkley, Respondents, v. John Burry; Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, LLP; Donald A. Harper; Greenville County; and Fant Engineering & Surveying Co., Inc., Defendants, and Haynsworth, Mario

[1] Lillian Simmons and Lessye Patterson, Co-Executrices of the Estate of Laura Alexander Richards, deceased (defendants below), appeal from a judgment in favor of Clark Richards, et al. (plaintiffs below). The judgment found and decreed that the mutual and conjoint will of Arthur Lee Richards and Laura Alexander Richards, husband and wife, was made pursuant to agreement between them, that under the terms of such agreement and will the parties agreed to make disposition of their estat

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge. Despite the many issues raised in these consolidated appeals, a single question of law predominates our review. After study of the statutory scheme, the briefs, and record, we conclude the only question before us is whether this action was barred by the untimely filing of the original complaint under Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 1

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge. In light of the Supreme Court’s order remanding this cause, we directed the parties to file supplemental briefs to address the question whether reinstatement of plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) claims is now mandated under Section 27A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, § 476 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991. We specified the parties address Bank of Denver

977 F.2d 1533 61 USLW 2139, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,968,23 Fed.R.Serv.3d 957 Ivan A. ANIXTER; Blanche Dickenson; Dolly K. Yoshida, onbehalf of themselves and all others similarlysituated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.HOME-STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation;Home-Stake 1971 Program Operating Corporation; Home-Stake1970 Program Operating Corporation; Home-Stake 1969 ProgramOpe

939 F.2d 1420 60 USLW 2121, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,128 Ivan A. ANIXTER; Blanche Dickenson; Dolly K. Yoshida, onbehalf of themselves and all others similarlysituated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.HOME-STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation;Home-Stake 1971 Program Operating Corporation; Home-Stake1970 Program Operating Corporation; Home-Stake 1969 ProgramOperating Corporation; Home

BRORBY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I dissent. The significant facts are simple. Appellant failed to object to a jury instruction and she likewise failed to object to the use of a general verdict. She now asks for a retrial due to a court-made change in the law occurring five years after the trial. I would apply Union Pacific R.R. v. Lumbert, 401 F.2d 699, 701