Opinion No., (1964)
Court: Oklahoma Attorney General Reports
Number:
Visitors: 68
Filed: Sep. 10, 1964
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: OPINION — AG — (NEPOTISM) THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS SECTION OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER UNLESS DICK BALL IS INTERESTED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN SAID CORPORATION, UNLESS HE, OR A MEMBER OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OWNS NAY SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE SAME. CITE: 70 Ohio St. 1961 , 4-29 [70-4-29], 21 Ohio St. 1961 481 [ 21-481 ] (W. J. MONROE) ** SEE: OPINION NO. 78-163 (1978) **
OPINION — AG — (NEPOTISM) THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS SECTION OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER UNLESS DICK BALL IS INTERESTED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN SAID CORPORATION, UNLESS HE, OR A MEMBER OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OWNS NAY SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE SAME. CITE: 70 Ohio St. 1961, 4-29 [70-4-29], 21 Ohio St. 1961 481 [21-481] (W. J. MONROE) ** SEE: OPINION NO. 78-163 (1978) **
Source: CourtListener
