uniformity clause in Oklahoma

2006In explaining the uniformity requirement for a law of a general nature, the Anderson court, at ¶ 26, quoted Noffzigger v. McAllister, 12 Kan. 315 (1873): . . .

2006In explaining the uniformity requirement for a law of a general nature, the Anderson court, at ¶ 26, quoted Noffzigger v. McAllister, 12 Kan. 315 (1873): ...

2006Whenever a law of a general nature is passed by the Legislature for the whole state, and is not applied by the Legislature to any particular locality thereof, and has no words prohibiting its operation in any particular locality thereof, it is a law having a uniform operation throughout the state, within the meaning of said constitutional provision, although it may not practically have operation in every part of the state. ¶ 15 In construing the Kansas prototype, Rambo, 73 P. at 916 , explained that the constitutional section was adopted as an injunction against the custom of state legislature

2006Whenever a law of a general nature is passed by the Legislature for the whole state, and is not applied by the Legislature to any particular locality thereof, and has no words prohibiting its operation in any particular locality thereof, it is a law having a uniform operation throughout the state, within the meaning of said constitutional provision, although it may not practically have operation in every part of the state. ¶ 15 In construing the Kansas prototype, Rambo, 73 P. at 916 , explained that the constitutional section was adopted as an injunction against the custom of state legislature

1972In my view, § 14 of the Turnpike Act, and § 1203 of the Franchise Tax Code, when construed together, as herein suggested, amount to a violation of the second sentence of Article 10, Section 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution, which provides that "Taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects." In Power, Inc. v. Huntley, 39 Wash.2d 191 , 235 P.2d 173 (1951) the Washington Supreme Court considered attacks upon the constitutionality of a strikingly similar statute and held that it violated the uniformity clause of the Washington Constitution, which provides that "All taxes shall be uniform

1972In my view, § 14 of the Turnpike Act, and § 1203 of the Franchise Tax Code, when construed together, as herein suggested, amount to a violation of the second sentence of Article 10, Section 5, of the Oklahoma Constitution, which provides that "Taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects." In Power, Inc. v. Huntley, 39 Wash.2d 191 , 235 P.2d 173 (1951) the Washington Supreme Court considered attacks upon the constitutionality of a strikingly similar statute and held that it violated the uniformity clause of the Washington Constitution, which provides that "All taxes shall be uniform

1949Tulsa County Excise Board v. City of Tulsa, 180 Okla. 248 , 68 P. 2d 823 , and other cases are cited wherein it was held that the excise board must apportion the full mill limit of levy between the various subdivisions of government as provided in article 10, sec. 9 of the Constitution.

1949Tulsa County Excise Board v. City of Tulsa, 180 Okla. 248 , 68 P. 2d 823 , and other cases are cited wherein it was held that the excise board must apportion the full mill limit of levy between the various subdivisions of government as provided in article 10, sec. 9 of the Constitution.

1944Knowles’ Estate, 295 Pa. 571 ; State v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 232 ; State v. Case, 39 Wash. 177 .

1944In the case In re McKennan’s Estate, 17 S.D. 136 , 130 N. W. 33 , the court held: “As to inheritance and excise tax laws, the constitutional requirement of equality and uniformity is satisfied, if there is equality and uniformity between the individuals constituting each class established by the law.” In Wisconsin it is held that the uniformity clause, like the equal protection clause, means “only that such taxation shall not unjustly discriminate, but shall operate alike upon all persons similarly situated.” Nunnemacher, Trustee, v. The State, 129 Wis. 190 , 108 N. W. 627 .

1944Knowles’ Estate, 295 Pa. 571 ; State v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 232 ; State v. Case, 39 Wash. 177 .

1944In the case In re McKennan’s Estate, 17 S.D. 136 , 130 N. W. 33 , the court held: “As to inheritance and excise tax laws, the constitutional requirement of equality and uniformity is satisfied, if there is equality and uniformity between the individuals constituting each class established by the law.” In Wisconsin it is held that the uniformity clause, like the equal protection clause, means “only that such taxation shall not unjustly discriminate, but shall operate alike upon all persons similarly situated.” Nunnemacher, Trustee, v. The State, 129 Wis. 190 , 108 N. W. 627 .

1944In the case In re McKennan’s Estate, 17 S.D. 136 , 130 N. W. 33 , the court held: “As to inheritance and excise tax laws, the constitutional requirement of equality and uniformity is satisfied, if there is equality and uniformity between the individuals constituting each class established by the law.” In Wisconsin it is held that the uniformity clause, like the equal protection clause, means “only that such taxation shall not unjustly discriminate, but shall operate alike upon all persons similarly situated.” Nunnemacher, Trustee, v. The State, 129 Wis. 190 , 108 N. W. 627 .

1944Knowles’ Estate, 295 Pa. 571 ; State v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 232 ; State v. Case, 39 Wash. 177 .

1940In the case of In re Gross Production Tax of Wolverine Oil Co. (1915) 53 Okla. 24 , 154 P. 362 , we upheld the application of different tax rates on various classes of minerals, and the entire exclusion of certain minerals was held not to render the act void for violation of the uniformity clause of section 5, art. 10, holding that where the statute operated alike upon all belonging to the same class it was not discriminatory, but uniform.

1940In the case of In re Gross Production Tax of Wolverine Oil Co. (1915) 53 Okla. 24 , 154 P. 362 , we upheld the application of different tax rates on various classes of minerals, and the entire exclusion of certain minerals was held not to render the act void for violation of the uniformity clause of section 5, art. 10, holding that where the statute operated alike upon all belonging to the same class it was not discriminatory, but uniform.

1938In Roberts v. Lodgerwood, 134 Okla. 152 , 272 P. 448 , the court held that the law of 1927, abolishing township officers in certain counties of the state, violated the uniformity clause of the Constitution.

1938In Roberts v. Lodgerwood, 134 Okla. 152 , 272 P. 448 , the court held that the law of 1927, abolishing township officers in certain counties of the state, violated the uniformity clause of the Constitution.

1923Diehl v. Grump, District Judge, 72 Oklahoma, 179 Pac. 4 , is strongly in point to this effect.