8 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1938–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
City & County of San Francisco v. Rossgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., City & County of San Francisco v. Ross, 44 Cal.2d 52 , 279 P.2d 529, 533 (1955) (rejecting the argument that the provision of off-street parking facilities at a reasonable rate regardless of ownership and primary purpose of operation ipso facto serves a public purpose); Shizas v. City of Detroit, 333 Mich. 44 , 52 N.W.2d 589 (1952) (holding statute providing for condemnation of property to be used in part for off-street parking facilities and in part for rental for private business void for failure to satisfy the public purpose test); Reel v. City of Freeport, 61 Ill.App.2d 448 , 20 2014See, e.g., City & County of San Francisco v. Ross, 44 Cal.2d 52 , 279 P.2d 529, 533 (1955) (rejecting the argument that the provision of off-street parking facilities at a reasonable rate regardless of ownership and primary purpose of operation ipso facto serves a public purpose); Shizas v. City of Detroit, 333 Mich. 44 , 52 N.W.2d 589 (1952) (holding statute providing for condemnation of property to be used in part for off-street parking facilities and in part for rental for private business void for failure to satisfy the public purpose test); Reel v. City of Freeport, 61 Ill.App.2d 448 , 20 | 2 | 2 |
Way v. Grand Lake Ass'n, Inc.green2 sentences2024Helm v. Childers, 1938 OK 34, ¶ 5, 75 P.2d 398, 399 (emphasis added). ¶7 The Oklahoma Supreme Court expressly affirmed this rule in Way v. Grand Lake Association , 1981 OK 70, ¶ 38, 635 P.2d 1010, 1016--17. 11 ¶8 Critically, any established program or contract must also have governmental controls and safeguards to fully satisfy the public purpose requirement . 2024Helm v. Childers, 1938 OK 34, ¶ 5, 75 P.2d 398, 399 (emphasis added). ¶7 The Oklahoma Supreme Court expressly affirmed this rule in Way v. Grand Lake Association , 1981 OK 70, ¶ 38, 635 P.2d 1010, 1016--17. 11 ¶8 Critically, any established program or contract must also have governmental controls and safeguards to fully satisfy the public purpose requirement . | 1 | 2 |
Burkhardt v. City of Enidgreen2 sentences2004See, Burkhardt, 771 P.2d at 614 . ¶ 25 The protester has failed to meet the burden of showing that the proposed bond issue violates the public purpose requirement or that the sale of the bonds constitutes a gift or special privilege to Goodyear and Michelin. 2004See, Burkhardt, 771 P.2d at 614 . ¶ 25 The protester has failed to meet the burden of showing that the proposed bond issue violates the public purpose requirement or that the sale of the bonds constitutes a gift or special privilege to Goodyear and Michelin. | 1 | 2 |
Democratic Party of Oklahoma v. Estepgreen2 sentences2024Id .; see also Democratic Party of Okla. v. Estep , 1982 OK 106, ¶ 14 n.19, 652 P.2d 271, 276 n.19 (the legislation in Way required the "legislative policy to be followed and defined the category of expenditures for which reimbursement could be sought. 2024Id .; see also Democratic Party of Okla. v. Estep , 1982 OK 106, ¶ 14 n.19, 652 P.2d 271, 276 n.19 (the legislation in Way required the "legislative policy to be followed and defined the category of expenditures for which reimbursement could be sought. | 1 | 1 |
Helm v. Childersgreen2 sentences2024Helm v. Childers, 1938 OK 34, ¶ 5, 75 P.2d 398, 399 (emphasis added). ¶7 The Oklahoma Supreme Court expressly affirmed this rule in Way v. Grand Lake Association , 1981 OK 70, ¶ 38, 635 P.2d 1010, 1016--17. 11 ¶8 Critically, any established program or contract must also have governmental controls and safeguards to fully satisfy the public purpose requirement . 2024Helm v. Childers, 1938 OK 34, ¶ 5, 75 P.2d 398, 399 (emphasis added). ¶7 The Oklahoma Supreme Court expressly affirmed this rule in Way v. Grand Lake Association , 1981 OK 70, ¶ 38, 635 P.2d 1010, 1016--17. 11 ¶8 Critically, any established program or contract must also have governmental controls and safeguards to fully satisfy the public purpose requirement . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Patterson v. Beallgreen2 sentences2006But see Patterson v. Beall, 2000 OK 92, ¶ 1, n. 1 , 19 P.3d 839 (noting that while a party's attempt to raise an issue in the party's supplemental brief on certiorari without first expressly raising the issue in his petition for certiorari fails to preserve error, this Court may review claims relating to alleged deprivations of due process of law despite that party's failure to preserve error). [8] Prior to the hearing for oral argument on certiorari, the parties in the Hobbs matter (# 98,531) were ordered to present additional supplementary briefs to specifically address the following questio 2006But see Patterson v. Beall, 2000 OK 92, ¶ 1, n. 1 , 19 P.3d 839 (noting that while a party's attempt to raise an issue in the party's supplemental brief on certiorari without first expressly raising the issue in his petition for certiorari fails to preserve error, this Court may review claims relating to alleged deprivations of due process of law despite that party's failure to preserve error). [8] Prior to the hearing for oral argument on certiorari, the parties in the Hobbs matter (# 98,531) were ordered to present additional supplementary briefs to specifically address the following questio | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
COUNTY COM'RS OF MUSKOGEE CO. v. Lowery
green
2 sentences2014"If we were to find the public purpose test satisfied on these facts, we would essentially be first permitting the taking of private property for a private use in order to give rise to a private, non-party's contractual obligation to construct a pipeline that would ultimately satisfy the public purposes requirement." Id. 2014"If we were to find the public purpose test satisfied on these facts, we would essentially be first permitting the taking of private property for a private use in order to give rise to a private, non-party's contractual obligation to construct a pipeline that would ultimately satisfy the public purposes requirement." Id. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
City of Austin v. Harry M. Whittington
green
2 sentences2014App.2d 448, 209 N.E.2d 675 (1965) (reversing dismissal on the basis of allegations that defendant city conspired with other defendants to sell to defendant department store an existing parking lot for private use and thereafter take plaintiff's property to replace such parking facility for purported public use); City of Austin v. Whittington , 55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1245, 384 S.W.3d 766 (2012) (concluding that parking garage was a "public building" where it was open to the public and the primary purpose of the garage was to support an expanded convention center legislatively considered a public u 2014J. 1245, 384 S.W.3d 766 (2012) (concluding that parking garage was a "public building" where it was open to the public and the primary purpose of the garage was to support an expanded convention center legislatively considered a public use supportive of the city's condemnation of privately owned land necessary for such use); Rhode Island Economic Development Corp. v. The Parking Co., L.P., 892 A.2d 87 (holding where condemnation of a temporary easement in an airport parking garage was primarily designed for economic benefit to gain control of the garage at a discounted price, the taking was no | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Shizas v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences2014See, e.g., City & County of San Francisco v. Ross, 44 Cal.2d 52 , 279 P.2d 529, 533 (1955) (rejecting the argument that the provision of off-street parking facilities at a reasonable rate regardless of ownership and primary purpose of operation ipso facto serves a public purpose); Shizas v. City of Detroit, 333 Mich. 44 , 52 N.W.2d 589 (1952) (holding statute providing for condemnation of property to be used in part for off-street parking facilities and in part for rental for private business void for failure to satisfy the public purpose test); Reel v. City of Freeport, 61 Ill.App.2d 448 , 20 2014See, e.g., City & County of San Francisco v. Ross, 44 Cal.2d 52 , 279 P.2d 529, 533 (1955) (rejecting the argument that the provision of off-street parking facilities at a reasonable rate regardless of ownership and primary purpose of operation ipso facto serves a public purpose); Shizas v. City of Detroit, 333 Mich. 44 , 52 N.W.2d 589 (1952) (holding statute providing for condemnation of property to be used in part for off-street parking facilities and in part for rental for private business void for failure to satisfy the public purpose test); Reel v. City of Freeport, 61 Ill.App.2d 448 , 20 | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Rhode Island Economic Development Corp. v. Parking Co. L.P.
green
2 sentences2014App.2d 448, 209 N.E.2d 675 (1965) (reversing dismissal on the basis of allegations that defendant city conspired with other defendants to sell to defendant department store an existing parking lot for private use and thereafter take plaintiff's property to replace such parking facility for purported public use); City of Austin v. Whittington , 55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1245, 384 S.W.3d 766 (2012) (concluding that parking garage was a "public building" where it was open to the public and the primary purpose of the garage was to support an expanded convention center legislatively considered a public u 2014J. 1245, 384 S.W.3d 766 (2012) (concluding that parking garage was a "public building" where it was open to the public and the primary purpose of the garage was to support an expanded convention center legislatively considered a public use supportive of the city's condemnation of privately owned land necessary for such use); Rhode Island Economic Development Corp. v. The Parking Co., L.P., 892 A.2d 87 (holding where condemnation of a temporary easement in an airport parking garage was primarily designed for economic benefit to gain control of the garage at a discounted price, the taking was no | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Reel v. City of Freeport
green
2 sentences2014See, e.g., City & County of San Francisco v. Ross, 44 Cal.2d 52 , 279 P.2d 529, 533 (1955) (rejecting the argument that the provision of off-street parking facilities at a reasonable rate regardless of ownership and primary purpose of operation ipso facto serves a public purpose); Shizas v. City of Detroit, 333 Mich. 44 , 52 N.W.2d 589 (1952) (holding statute providing for condemnation of property to be used in part for off-street parking facilities and in part for rental for private business void for failure to satisfy the public purpose test); Reel v. City of Freeport, 61 Ill.App.2d 448 , 20 2014See, e.g., City & County of San Francisco v. Ross, 44 Cal.2d 52 , 279 P.2d 529, 533 (1955) (rejecting the argument that the provision of off-street parking facilities at a reasonable rate regardless of ownership and primary purpose of operation ipso facto serves a public purpose); Shizas v. City of Detroit, 333 Mich. 44 , 52 N.W.2d 589 (1952) (holding statute providing for condemnation of property to be used in part for off-street parking facilities and in part for rental for private business void for failure to satisfy the public purpose test); Reel v. City of Freeport, 61 Ill.App.2d 448 , 20 | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State Ex Rel. Brown v. City of Warr Acres
green
2 sentences2021Brown v. City of Warr Acres , 1997 OK 117 , 946 P.2d 1140 , we addressed whether or not the city met the public purpose requirement when the city entered into an economic development plan to induce a large retailer to the city. 2021Brown v. City of Warr Acres , 1997 OK 117 , 946 P.2d 1140 , we addressed whether or not the city met the public purpose requirement when the city entered into an economic development plan to induce a large retailer to the city. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Tuttle v. Jefferson Power & Improvement Co.
green
2 sentences2006The law does not support such a cart-before-the-horse type extension of the County's general eminent domain power. [15] The County additionally asserts (in its Petition filed in the trial court in addition to its appellate briefs) that Energetix is a public utility and that the rule set forth in Tuttle v. Jefferson Power & Improvement Co., 1912 OK 232 , 122 P. 1102 is applicable in these cases. 2006The law does not support such a cart-before-the-horse type extension of the County's general eminent domain power. [15] The County additionally asserts (in its Petition filed in the trial court in addition to its appellate briefs) that Energetix is a public utility and that the rule set forth in Tuttle v. Jefferson Power & Improvement Co., 1912 OK 232 , 122 P. 1102 is applicable in these cases. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Vette v. Childers
green
2 sentences1938Vette v. Childers, State Auditor, 102 Okla. 140 , 228 P. 145 ; Citizens Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 1938Vette v. Childers, State Auditor, 102 Okla. 140 , 228 P. 145 ; Citizens Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.