# Kinslow Round-Up Inc. v. City of Seminole

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · July 6, 2004 · 75 O.B.A.J. 1906

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5152323

## Case

- **Full name:** In re DE-ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF SEMINOLE, A Municipal Corporation, Kinslow Round-Up Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation Jack C. and Bonnie M. Humphreys Trust No. 1 8:32, Inc., a Non-profit Corporation D. Kircher Investments, L.L.C. The CFS Insurance and Securities Money Purchase Plan and Trust Gary and Linda Bloomer, HWJT's Modern Oil Co., Inc. Bobby J. Williams and Mary E. Williams Living Trust Joe K. and Alyce Ellis, HWJT's Billy G. Clark Hazel Reynolds Jim and Robin Norris (Landlord) Julia Bellini and Leslie Hinds (Tenants) Eugene and Francis Warrensberg and Sue Jarvis, Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Appellants v. The City of Seminole, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent/Defendant/Appellee, and State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Oklahoma Tax Commission, Additional
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** July 6, 2004
- **Citations:** 75 O.B.A.J. 1906; 102 P.3d 120; 2004 OK 60; 2004 Okla. LEXIS 68
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Watt
- **Judges:** Boudreau, Edmondson, Hargrave, Hodges, Kauger, Lavender, Opala, Simms, Watt, Winchester
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5152323

## Opinion text

WATT, C.J.,
with whom HODGES, J. joins, dissenting:
T1 I dissent because it seems to me that there is no way to square the majority opinion here with Sharp v. Oklahoma City, 1937 OK 685 , 74 P.2d 383 ; Town of Luther v. State, 1967 OK 59 , 425 P.2d 986 ; City of Claremore v. Town of Verdigris, 2001 OK 91 , 50 P.3d 208 ; and Botsford v. City of Norman, 354 F.2d 491 (10th Cir.1965), which we cited with approval in both Town of Luther and City of Claremore.
1 2 The foregoing opinions make clear that the use by a municipality of the "strip" method to annex additional territory is a political decision with which this Court will not interfere, regardless of the shape of the anmexed property. For example, in City of Norman, the involved strip was sixty-seven feet wide and fourteen miles long. We held in Sharp, and quoted with approval in City of Clare-more, "That the extent and shape which the annexed territory shall take is a political and not a judicial decision...." City of Clare more, at 112. There is simply no way to square these opinions with today's majority opinion, which invalidates Seminole's annex *133 ation because the involved strip was only three feet wide.
T 3 Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5152323. Public record. Not legal advice.