Opinion

Stanolind Pipe Line Co. v. Tulsa County Excise Board

  • 183 Okla. 160
  • 80 P.2d 316
  • 1938 OK 248
  • 1938 Okla. LEXIS 214
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Apr 5, 1938
Status
Published
Author
Gibson
On the bench
Welch, Osborn, Bayless, Riley, Phelps, Corn, Hurst, Davison, Gibson
Cited by
3 cases

tax levies for the school district were not permitted because they exceeded the amount permitted by Section 26

How later courts described this case

  • tax levies for the school district were not permitted because they exceeded the amount permitted by Section 26

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

GIBSON, J.

(concurring specially). 1 concur in the result reached, but I do not agree that the original estimate submitted by the school board of district No. 34 complied with the statute as an estimated need for transfer fees. I do not find any authority for holding that a certain ratio of an undetermined total appropriation meets the requirements of our constitutional and statutory provisions relating to the necessity of fixing definitely the amounts of needs for which taxes may be levied. The excise board, however, placed a definite amount in the estimate and published the corrected amount as provided by article ■ 13, chapter 66, S. L. 1935. This was done pursuant to a resolution, wherein it was found by the excise board that, if an item of expected

primary

aid was

not

considered by it as an item of income, then the levy, together with the aid the state would pay, would produce income far in excess of the needs, and if the item of expected primary aid was considered, the levy would be such that certain aid would not be received, hence the needs could not properly be financed. The excise board found it necessary, therefore, to adjust the appropriations and also ordered that “the levy be recomputed to adequately finance

the

needs of said school district.” The recomputed appropriations and “corrected levy” were included in the publication, which substantially complied with the law. It does not appear that the item as recomputed was, as a matter of fact, in excess of the actual needs for the purpose, nor that such item was not among those authorized by the voters. Neither does it appear that the final levy was in excess of that authorized by the voters of the district. In the absence of. more positive proof, the conclusion is that the excise board, finding a request for transfer fees in the school board’s estimate, found that the budget requested required adjustments in order to meet the needs and acted accordingly, and within the statute.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.