Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsagreen2 sentences2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of 2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of | 1 | 2 |
Private Truck Council of America, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of 2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of | 1 | 2 |
National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'ngreen2 sentences2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of 2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of | 1 | 1 |
Brandon v. Ashworthgreen2 sentences2021See , e.g. , Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services , 2002 OK 71 , ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 1072, 1078 (plaintiffs had standing, as taxpayers, to challenge in equity the alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds); Brandon v. Ashworth , 1998 OK 20 , ¶ 7, 955 P.2d 233, 235 (injunction to enjoin illegal use of public money). 57 Compare , Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1997 OK 126 , ¶¶ 10-15, 947 P.2d 525, 527-529 (to be an exclusive state tax remedy it must also be adequate, clear, and certain for a federal constitutional challenge), and Strelecki v. Ok 2021See , e.g. , Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services , 2002 OK 71 , ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 1072, 1078 (plaintiffs had standing, as taxpayers, to challenge in equity the alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds); Brandon v. Ashworth , 1998 OK 20 , ¶ 7, 955 P.2d 233, 235 (injunction to enjoin illegal use of public money). 57 Compare , Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1997 OK 126 , ¶¶ 10-15, 947 P.2d 525, 527-529 (to be an exclusive state tax remedy it must also be adequate, clear, and certain for a federal constitutional challenge), and Strelecki v. Ok | 1 | 1 |
Oklahoma Public Employees Ass'n v. Oklahoma Department of Central Servicesgreen2 sentences2021See , e.g. , Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services , 2002 OK 71 , ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 1072, 1078 (plaintiffs had standing, as taxpayers, to challenge in equity the alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds); Brandon v. Ashworth , 1998 OK 20 , ¶ 7, 955 P.2d 233, 235 (injunction to enjoin illegal use of public money). 57 Compare , Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1997 OK 126 , ¶¶ 10-15, 947 P.2d 525, 527-529 (to be an exclusive state tax remedy it must also be adequate, clear, and certain for a federal constitutional challenge), and Strelecki v. Ok 2021See , e.g. , Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services , 2002 OK 71 , ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 1072, 1078 (plaintiffs had standing, as taxpayers, to challenge in equity the alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds); Brandon v. Ashworth , 1998 OK 20 , ¶ 7, 955 P.2d 233, 235 (injunction to enjoin illegal use of public money). 57 Compare , Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1997 OK 126 , ¶¶ 10-15, 947 P.2d 525, 527-529 (to be an exclusive state tax remedy it must also be adequate, clear, and certain for a federal constitutional challenge), and Strelecki v. Ok | 1 | 1 |
Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commissiongreen2 sentences2021See , e.g. , Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services , 2002 OK 71 , ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 1072, 1078 (plaintiffs had standing, as taxpayers, to challenge in equity the alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds); Brandon v. Ashworth , 1998 OK 20 , ¶ 7, 955 P.2d 233, 235 (injunction to enjoin illegal use of public money). 57 Compare , Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1997 OK 126 , ¶¶ 10-15, 947 P.2d 525, 527-529 (to be an exclusive state tax remedy it must also be adequate, clear, and certain for a federal constitutional challenge), and Strelecki v. Ok 2021See , e.g. , Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services , 2002 OK 71 , ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 1072, 1078 (plaintiffs had standing, as taxpayers, to challenge in equity the alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds); Brandon v. Ashworth , 1998 OK 20 , ¶ 7, 955 P.2d 233, 235 (injunction to enjoin illegal use of public money). 57 Compare , Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1997 OK 126 , ¶¶ 10-15, 947 P.2d 525, 527-529 (to be an exclusive state tax remedy it must also be adequate, clear, and certain for a federal constitutional challenge), and Strelecki v. Ok | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Henrygreen2 sentences2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of 2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of | 1 | 1 |
STEVENS v. FOXgreen2 sentences2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of 2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of | 1 | 1 |
Payne, County Treas. v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of 2021National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 515 U.S. 582 , 589, 115 S.Ct. 2351 , 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) ("Given this principle, we hold that [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 does not call for either federal or state courts to award injunctive and declaratory relief in state tax cases when an adequate legal remedy exists."). 56 See Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa , 2011 OK 57 , ¶ 25 n. 46, & ¶¶ 26-27, 270 P.3d 113, 127 , citing Private Truck Council of Am., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1994 OK 96 , 879 P.2d 137 , 145 n.2, ([1] Taxpayer could not enjoin the collection of | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United Airlines, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization
green
2 sentences2011Id. 879 P.2d at 145 n. 2, citing Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Smith, 1980 OK 74 , 610 P.2d 794 , and United Airlines, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 1990 OK 29 , 789 P.2d 1305 . . 2011Id. 879 P.2d at 145 n. 2, citing Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Smith, 1980 OK 74 , 610 P.2d 794 , and United Airlines, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 1990 OK 29 , 789 P.2d 1305 . . | 2 | 1994–2011 |
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Smith
green
2 sentences1994However, an Oklahoma taxpayer may maintain a declaratory judgment action to challenge the validity of a taxing statute on its face before the tax becomes due, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Smith, 610 P.2d 794 (1980), or to challenge the authority of the assessing entity. 1994However, an Oklahoma taxpayer may maintain a declaratory judgment action to challenge the validity of a taxing statute on its face before the tax becomes due, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Smith, 610 P.2d 794 (1980), or to challenge the authority of the assessing entity. | 2 | 1994–2011 |
Phillips v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
green
2 sentences2021See , e.g. , Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services , 2002 OK 71 , ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 1072, 1078 (plaintiffs had standing, as taxpayers, to challenge in equity the alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds); Brandon v. Ashworth , 1998 OK 20 , ¶ 7, 955 P.2d 233, 235 (injunction to enjoin illegal use of public money). 57 Compare , Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1997 OK 126 , ¶¶ 10-15, 947 P.2d 525, 527-529 (to be an exclusive state tax remedy it must also be adequate, clear, and certain for a federal constitutional challenge), and Strelecki v. Ok 2021See , e.g. , Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services , 2002 OK 71 , ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 1072, 1078 (plaintiffs had standing, as taxpayers, to challenge in equity the alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds); Brandon v. Ashworth , 1998 OK 20 , ¶ 7, 955 P.2d 233, 235 (injunction to enjoin illegal use of public money). 57 Compare , Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1997 OK 126 , ¶¶ 10-15, 947 P.2d 525, 527-529 (to be an exclusive state tax remedy it must also be adequate, clear, and certain for a federal constitutional challenge), and Strelecki v. Ok | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Strelecki v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
green
2 sentences2021See , e.g. , Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services , 2002 OK 71, ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 1072, 1078 (plaintiffs had standing, as taxpayers, to challenge in equity the alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds); Brandon v. Ashworth , 1998 OK 20, ¶ 7, 955 P.2d 233, 235 (injunction to enjoin illegal use of public money). 57 Compare , Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1997 OK 126, ¶¶ 10-15, 947 P.2d 525, 527-529 (to be an exclusive state tax remedy it must also be adequate, clear, and certain for a federal constitutional challenge), and Strelecki v. Oklahoma 2021See , e.g. , Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Department of Central Services , 2002 OK 71 , ¶ 10, 55 P.3d 1072, 1078 (plaintiffs had standing, as taxpayers, to challenge in equity the alleged wrongful expenditure of public funds); Brandon v. Ashworth , 1998 OK 20 , ¶ 7, 955 P.2d 233, 235 (injunction to enjoin illegal use of public money). 57 Compare , Redbird v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 1997 OK 126 , ¶¶ 10-15, 947 P.2d 525, 527-529 (to be an exclusive state tax remedy it must also be adequate, clear, and certain for a federal constitutional challenge), and Strelecki v. Ok | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Conoco, Inc. v. STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH, ETC.
green
1 sentence2000The key determinant is the existence of a "justiciable matter." See Conoco, Inc. v. State Dep't of Health, 1982 OK 94 , ¶ 18, 651 P.2d 125, 131-32 . {16 Certainly, a plaintiff can successfully bring a declaratory judgment action to test the applicability or constitutionality of a statute. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.