The Authority is authorized in its discretion to file an application with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for the approval of any bonds to be issued hereunder, and exclusive original jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the Supreme Court to hear and determine each such application. It shall be the duty of the Court
to give such applications precedence over the other business of the Court and to consider and pass upon the applications and any protests which may be filed thereto as speedily as possible. Notice of the hearing on each application shall be given by a notice published in a newspaper of general circulation in the state that on a day named the Authority will ask the Court to hear its application and approve the bonds. Such notice shall inform all persons interested that they may file protests against the issuance of the bonds and be present at the hearing and contest the legality thereof. Such notice shall be published one time not less than ten (10) days prior to the date named for the hearing and the hearing may be adjourned from time to time in the discretion of the Court. If the Court shall be satisfied that the bonds have been properly authorized in accordance with this article and that when issued, they will constitute valid obligations in accordance with their terms, the Court shall render its written opinion approving the bonds and shall fix the time within which a petition for rehearing may be filed. The decision of the Court shall be a judicial determination of the validity of the bonds, shall be conclusive as to the Authority, its officers and agents, and thereafter the bonds so approved and the revenues pledged to their payment shall be incontestable in any court in the State of Oklahoma. Added by Laws 1968, c. 415, § 1718, operative July 1, 1968.
Notes of Decisions
In re the Oklahoma Tpk. Auth., 770 P.2d 16 (Okla. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Therefore this Court, by this opinion, approves the issuance of the bonds as it authorized to do by 69 O.S.1981 § 1718. The Court hereby fixes a period of ten days in which a petition for rehearing may be filed herein.”
In the Matter of the Application of the Oklahoma Tpk. Auth., 2023 OK 84, 535 P.3d 1248.
· cites it 11× “IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL OF NOT TO EXCEED $500,000,000 OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE SYSTEM SECOND SENIOR LIEN REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2022 ORIGINAL ACTION TO APPROVE STATE REVENUE BONDS ¶0 The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority brought this…”
In the Matter of the Application of the Oklahoma Tpk. Auth., 2023 OK 84, 535 P.3d 1248.
· cites it 11× “3d __ IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL OF NOT TO EXCEED $500,000,000 OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE SYSTEM SECOND SENIOR LIEN REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2022 ORIGINAL ACTION TO APPROVE STATE REVENUE BONDS ¶0 The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority brought…”
In the Matter of the Application of the Oklahoma Tpk. Auth., 2023 OK 84, 535 P.3d 1248.
· cites it 11× “3d __ IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL OF NOT TO EXCEED $500,000,000 OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE SYSTEM SECOND SENIOR LIEN REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2022 ORIGINAL ACTION TO APPROVE STATE REVENUE BONDS ¶0 The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority brought…”
Pike Off Ota v. Oklahoma Tpk. Auth., 2023 OK 57, 531 P.3d 107.
· cites it 6× “¶2 The issues before the Court are (1) the constitutionality of 69 O.S.2021, § 1718 ¶3 For the reasons stated herein, we hold § 1718 is constitutional, as the Oklahoma Constitution specifically provides that appellate courts may exercise such jurisdiction as conferred by…”
Pike Off Ota v. Oklahoma Tpk. Auth., 2023 OK 57, 531 P.3d 107.
· cites it 6× “¶2 The issues before the Court are (1) the constitutionality of 69 O.S.2021, § 1718, conferring on this Court the exclusive original jurisdiction to determine the validity of proposed bonds to construct and operate turnpikes; (2) whether Appellants' claims challenging the OTA's…”
Hirschfeld v. Oklahoma Tpk. Auth., 2023 OK 59.
· cites it 2× “Appellees agree in that they admit that invalidating the challenged agenda items would only amount to a setback in the OTA's efforts to construct the proposed turnpikes and not give the conclusive relief Appellees seek.”
Hirschfeld v. Oklahoma Tpk. Auth., 2023 OK 59.
· cites it 2× “Appellees agree in that they admit that invalidating the challenged agenda items would only amount to a setback in the OTA's efforts to construct the proposed turnpikes and not give the conclusive relief Appellees seek.”
Oklahoma Tpk. Auth. v. Olsen, 2022 OK 98, 521 P.3d 806.
“Clearly, the Real Parties in Interest have a right to be heard on their Open Meeting Act claims, but the legal issue brought in this original proceeding is whether the Cleveland County District Court has the authority to determine the Real Parties in Interest's claims or whether…”
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.