# Meder v. City of Oklahoma City

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · March 28, 1960 · 350 P.2d 916

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9530568

## Case

- **Full name:** Leonard L. MEDER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, a Municipal Corporation, Sheldon L. Stirling and Philip J. Rhoads, Trustees of the Oklahoma City Development Trust, the Oklahoma City Development Trust, a Trust, and the First National Bank and Trust Company of Oklahoma City, Defendants. James R. Huggins, Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** March 28, 1960
- **Citations:** 350 P.2d 916
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Berry
- **Judges:** Davison, Welch, Halley, Johnson, Berry, Williams, Blackbird, Irwin, Jackson
- **Cited by:** 21 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/9530568

## Opinion text

BERRY, Justice
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion.
The Trust is either a legal entity separate and apart from the city or it isn’t. If Trust is not a separate legal entity from the city, then the constitutional restraints placed upon a city relative to the manner in which a bonded indebtedness may be incurred are applicable, and being applicable, the financing plan before us clearly violates the Constitution. If the Trust is a separate legal entity, then the city has clearly granted a franchise to Trust in violation of Art. 18, Secs. 5(a) and 7 of the Constitution.
I am of the firm conviction that Trust is a legal entity separate and apart from the city and that a franchise was granted in violation of the cited constitutional provisions.
For the reasons herein stated, I respectfully dissent.
I am. authorized to state that WILLIAMS, V. C. J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting view.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9530568. Public record. Not legal advice.