In this case, Phillips Petroleum Company built a pipeline across the owner's rural property without permission, mistakenly believing it had acquired a blanket easement or other rights through prior transfers and record checks, resulting in a trespass about three feet outside its known 35-foot easement. The owner sued for actual and exemplary damages plus a mandatory injunction to remove the pipeline. The trial court awarded $5,260 in actual damages and $60,000 in exemplary damages but denied the injunction. On appeal, the court affirmed the actual damages and denial of the injunction, finding the trespass unintentional, the owner's use not substantially affected, and removal would cause undue hardship, but reversed the exemplary damages award because the evidence showed Phillips acted in good faith without malice, fraud, or gross negligence.
The case involved whether General Motors Corporation's interest in an assembly plant financed through a public trust (Oklahoma Industries Authority) was subject to ad valorem taxation, despite an alleged agreement for tax abatement in exchange for building the plant in Oklahoma. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the trial court's summary judgment against GMC, holding that the plant is taxable because it is held under an executory contract of purchase. The court reasoned that Article 10, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits contracting away the state's power of taxation, making any such abatement agreement void, and relied on its prior decision in State ex rel. Cartwright v. Dunbar that similar public trust leaseholds are taxable.
This case was a tort action brought by a student and his parents against a school superintendent for allegedly spanking the child with excessive force while intoxicated, after the child was involved in minor scuffling at school. The plaintiffs did not provide the notice required by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and the trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer and dismissed the case on that basis. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Act's protections for political subdivision employees do not apply to allegations of willful and wanton conduct that falls outside the scope of employment. The court reasoned that the petition's claims of unnecessary force, intoxication, and threats placed the superintendent's actions beyond the immunity provided by the Act, which covers only torts committed within the scope of employment.
The case involved property owners petitioning the Town of Talihina to detach certain land from its corporate limits, which the town denied, leading to a district court order for detachment that the town appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that 11 O.S.1981, § 21-107 is unconstitutional because it improperly assigns to the judiciary the legislative task of deciding whether annexation or detachment requests should be granted without injustice to interested parties. The court reasoned that while judges may review municipal actions for compliance with authority and reasonableness, determining the merits of boundary changes is a purely legislative function that cannot be delegated to courts. It reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings on whether the town's denial was within its legislative authority and reasonable.
The case involved a plaintiff allegedly injured in a car accident after losing control on a patch of loose rock and oil left on a state highway by Department of Transportation employees. The trial court sustained the state's demurrer to the petition on grounds of sovereign immunity, as highway maintenance was deemed a governmental function, and the plaintiff elected to stand on the petition leading to judgment for the state. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, distinguishing a prior case involving voluntary county maintenance of a city street and holding that state highway construction and upkeep is a mandatory governmental function under the state constitution and statutes, with sovereign immunity applying unless the legislature chooses to abrogate it.
The case concerned whether Initiative Petition No. 317, proposing to redraw Oklahoma's congressional districts after the 1980 census, was numerically and legally sufficient to appear on the ballot as State Question No. 556. Protestants raised challenges including improper circulation of the petition while ballot-title proceedings were pending, defective statutory form, constitutional vagueness, retroactive impact on ongoing election processes, and conflicts with the U.S. Constitution's provisions on congressional redistricting and the timing of federal elections. The court analyzed the interaction between state initiative statutes and federal election laws, referred the numerical-signature issue to a referee, and examined each legal objection under Oklahoma and federal constitutional standards.