# Williams v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation

> Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · February 4, 2000 · 998 P.2d 1245

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598194

## Case

- **Full name:** Peggy J. WILLIAMS and Douglas A. Williams, Sr., Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Ex Rel. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant/Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** February 4, 2000
- **Citations:** 998 P.2d 1245; 2000 OK CIV APP 19; 2000 OK 19; 2000 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 4; 2000 WL 298099
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Garrett
- **Judges:** Joplin, Garrett, Buettner
- **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/9598194

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that only a jury demand preserves a challenge to the amount of compensation awarded

## Opinion text

GARRETT, J.,
concurs in part; dissents in part:
¶ 1 I agree with all of this opinion, except the reversal and remand to determine whether there was a taking.
¶2 ODOT did not make an issue as to “taking” before the trial court. ■ Since the statutory rules relating to eminent domain apply as far as they go, and since there are no statutes prescribing the procedure- to follow to present the issue as to the existence of a taking in a reverse condemnation case, the pleading code applies.
¶ 3 ODOT’s failure to deny the existence of the taking as alleged by Landowners constitutes a confession by ODOT that there was a taking. In addition, I would sustáin Landowners request for appellate attorney fees. I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598194. Public record. Not legal advice.