# Board of County Comm'rs of Creek County v. Casteel

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · March 5, 1974 · 522 P.2d 608

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9581218

## Case

- **Full name:** The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CREEK COUNTY, State of Oklahoma, Appellees, v. Billy v. CASTEEL and Margie Casteel, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** March 5, 1974
- **Citations:** 522 P.2d 608; 1974 OK 31
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hodges
- **Judges:** Barnes, Berry, Davidson, Doolin, Hodges, Irwin, Lavender, Simms, Williams
- **Cited by:** 30 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/9581218

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that only a timely filed objection to the commissioners' report will preserve a challenge to the necessity of the taking
- noting that only a jury demand preserves a challenge to the amount of compensation awarded

## Opinion text

HODGES, Justice
(dissenting).
The statute, 66 O.S.1971 § 55, and the Oklahoma Constitution Art. 2 § 24, relied on by the majority opinion, provide an exception to the report of commissioners only in so far as the amount of appraisement is concerned. They are silent as to what time limitations or procedures are applicable when the condemnee raises the question of the necessity of taking. A landowner may agree that the commissioners assessment of damages is correct, but disagree that there is a necessity for the taking of his land. The only duties of the commissioners are to inspect the property and submit a report showing the boundaries, quantity and value of the property taken, and to assess the damages for the taking. The commissioners have nothing to do with the judicial question of the necessity of taking.
Inasmuch as there are no statutory guidelines, the landowner’s objection to the. taking should have been treated as continuing. The trial court then should have set the matter for a hearing from which a judicial determination could have been made. I do not believe the condemnee should be deprived of his right to object to the necessity of taking by the assertion that his objection was prematurely filed.
I would affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeal. As stated in the opinion 44 OBJ 1453, 1456:
“The failure of the trial court upon proper request to grant a hearing on the necessity of taking, and to make a determination thereon, prior to the trial as to the amount of damages constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws, and was both fundamental and reversible error.”
I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice LAVENDER concurs in the views herein expressed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9581218. Public record. Not legal advice.