Okla. Stat. » Title 3 — AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 3, § 65.5 (2026)

See the following versions:

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

OS 3-65.5v1 (HB 3672, Laws 2024, c. 18, § 4). OS 3-65.5v2 (SB 1912, Laws 2024, c. 135, § 4).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 2003 OK 27 (Okla. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 2003 OK 27 (Okla. 2003). · cites it 3× “” 3 O.S.2001, § 65.5(a)(3). It also provides in specific terms that a municipality may adopt such regulations as it deems necessary for the management, government and use of the municipal airport, 3 O.”
City of Tulsa v. Air Tulsa, Inc., 851 P.2d 519 (Okla. 1992). “Air Tulsa and Jet Center claim that the fuel flow ordinance is not “reasonable and uniform for the same class of privilege and service” and, therefore, violates 3 O.S.1981 § 65.5(a)(3). According to Air Tulsa and Jet Center some aircraft using the airports’ facilities might not…”
Branson v. Port of Seattle, 115 Wash. App. 695 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Code § 2-06-11 (2002) (same); Okla. Stat. tit. 3, § 65.5 (2002) (same); Or.”
Emrich Aerial Spraying LLC v. The City of Pawhuska, Pawhuska Mun. Airport Auth., & Pawhuska Mun. Airport Advisory Comm. (N.D. Okla. 2025). · cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. tit. 3, § 65.5 (A)(1)–(2). In each case, the municipality may “establish the terms and conditions and fix the charges, rentals or fees for the privileges,” which themselves “shall be reasonable and uniform for the same class of privilege .”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 3, § 65.5(a)(3) — 2 cases
Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 2003 OK 27 (Okla. 2003). “” 3 O.S.2001, § 65.5(a)(3). It also provides in specific terms that a municipality may adopt such regulations as it deems necessary for the management, government and use of the municipal airport, 3 O.”
City of Tulsa v. Air Tulsa, Inc., 851 P.2d 519 (Okla. 1992). “Air Tulsa and Jet Center claim that the fuel flow ordinance is not “reasonable and uniform for the same class of privilege and service” and, therefore, violates 3 O.S.1981 § 65.5(a)(3). According to Air Tulsa and Jet Center some aircraft using the airports’ facilities might not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.