# Caddo Electric Cooperative v. State Ex Rel. Whelan

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · March 31, 1964 · 391 P.2d 234

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9571341

## Case

- **Full name:** CADDO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE Ex Rel. John v. WHELAN, County Attorney, City of El Reno, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, Defendants in Error
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** March 31, 1964
- **Citations:** 391 P.2d 234; 54 P.U.R.3d 214; 1964 OK 73; 1964 Okla. LEXIS 303
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Berry
- **Judges:** Blackbird, Welch, Davison, Williams, Irwin, Jackson, Berry, Halley, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 13 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/9571341

## Opinion text

BERRY, Justice
(specially concurring).
I agree with the holding of the majority opinion.
Generally the right granted by the Legislature to carry on a business with the right to the use of highways, roadways and other public properties, to set poles for electric lines for such purpose, is regarded as a franchise. Also, generally, the obligations arising thereunder come within the protection of the Federal Constitution. A franchise, however, must be taken subject to existing laws, both statutory and constitutional.
In the case before us, the Co-op built lines and serviced its members. This involved the use of its legislative franchise, and in so doing acquired property rights in the materials used and contractual obligations arising with its members.
After the area involved was taken into the city under Okla.Const. Art. XVIII, Secs. 5(a) and 5(b), the city alone had the authority to grant, extend or renew these services under its power as a municipality. This right, however, did not operate to set aside and destroy the property rights or the contractual obligations which were assumed and acquired prior to the annexation by the city.
I am of the opinion that to permit the Co-op to extend its lines and services within the annexed area would be repugnant to *241 existing statutes and the constitutional provisions. I am also of the opinion that to require the Co-op to remove its lines and to terminate its services to its members by a mere city ordinance would be a denial of the “due process” clause of our Constitution.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9571341. Public record. Not legal advice.