Abbott v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF OSCAR ROSE, ETC.

1978 OK 129, 586 P.2d 1098
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 3, 1978
Docket50296
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 1978 OK 129 (Abbott v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF OSCAR ROSE, ETC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abbott v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF OSCAR ROSE, ETC., 1978 OK 129, 586 P.2d 1098 (Okla. 1978).

Opinion

586 P.2d 1098 (1978)

W. Rogers ABBOTT II, for himself and on Behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Appellants,
v.
The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF OSCAR ROSE JUNIOR COLLEGE, and the members thereof, Joe B. Barnes, Chairman, William G. Bernhardt, John Conrad, J.B. Estes, Don Reynolds, Toney M. Webber, Cecil Parham, County Clerk of Oklahoma County, Don Wilson, County Assessor of Oklahoma County, and Jack Blackwell, County Treasurer of Oklahoma County, Appellees.

No. 50296.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

October 3, 1978.
Rehearing Denied December 4, 1978.

LeRoy A. Powers, Oklahoma City, for appellants.

Clark Hurd, pro se.

Edward H. Ferrish, Midwest City, for appellees.

Andrew M. Coats, Dist. Atty., Dist. Number Seven, Julia T. Brown, Asst. Dist. Atty., Oklahoma City, for appellees, Cecil Parham, Don Wilson, Jack Blackwell.

*1099 LAVENDER, Vice Chief Justice:

W. Rogers Abbott II (Abbott), a landowner, sought to enjoin the levy and assessment of taxes for the benefit of Oscar Rose Junior College District, an area school district[1] (Oscar Rose), as against real property located within the territory of what was formerly Pleasant Hills School District in Oklahoma County, D-45. That dependent school district was annexed to Midwest City-Del City School District, I-52.

Trial was to the court and basically on stipulation by the parties. No principal facts are in dispute. Pleasant Hills School District, a dependent school district, was annexed to Midwest City-Del City School District, an independent school district. At time of annexation, the real property within the annexing school district was subject to levy and assessment of taxes for Oscar Rose Junior College District, an area school district. Based on the annexation of Pleasant Hills with Midwest City-Del City, real property within the annexed Pleasant Hills was made subject to the Oscar Rose assessment. Abbott, as a landowner in the annexed school district, sought an injunction to prevent enforcement of the Oscar Rose tax against real property located within the territory of the annexed dependent school district. The trial court refused the injunction. Abbott appealed.

Abbott argues (1) there must be compliance with 70 O.S. 1971, § 4403(b)[2] for the *1100 territory within Pleasant Hills school district to be annexed to the community junior college school district; (2) Pleasant Hills school district electors have not voted on the levy as required by Okla.Const., art. 10, § 9B; (3) and position of the proponents of the tax violates 70 O.S. 1971, § 4411,[3] for that argument allows control to be removed from State Regents of Higher Education and places it with the State Board of Vocational and Technical Education.

Proponents for the levy and assessment, appellees, contend (1) § 4410[4] controls and allows a community maintaining a community junior college to become an area school district (area technical school district) making 70 O.S. 1971, § 14-108[5] applicable as to the annexing of territory in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the State Board of Vocational and Technical Education that provide the territory of an annexed school district becomes a part of an area school district if the annexing school district is a part of an area school district;[6] and (2) § 4411 is not applicable to Oscar Rose.

Oscar Rose was established as a community junior college under authority of 70 *1101 O.S.Supp. 1967, §§ 4401 to 4409. An amendment to § 4403 in 1968[7] allowed additional territory to be annexed to the community and requires approval by the legal voters in the territory proposed to be annexed. Another 1968 Act,[8] of which § 1 is now § 4410, allowed a community maintaining a community junior college established under §§ 4401 to 4409 to become an area school district (area technical school district) and made applicable (to a community maintaining a community junior college becoming an area school district) the laws applicable to other area school districts, including laws authorizing tax levies and laws pertaining to eligibility for participation in federal funds. Section 2 of that same act, now § 4411, allowed any two-year college that is part of the State System of Higher Education to also become an area school district but the taxing authority granted to a community maintaining a community junior college was denied.

Oscar Rose, a community junior college, complied with § 4410. By so doing, the community maintaining that community junior college became an area school district with laws applicable to other area school districts also applicable to it except that the governing board remained the Board of Trustees of the community junior college rather than a board of education as provided to govern area school districts organized under § 14-108. Sub-section E, § 14-108 allows territory to be annexed to an area school district in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the State Board of Vocational and Technical Education. Those rules provide that with the annexing of territory by a dependent or independent school district already a part of an area school district then the territory of the annexed dependent or independent school district becomes a part of the area school district (area technical school district).

Here, Oscar Rose was organized as a community junior college. If its sole status had remained that of a community junior college, then annexation of additional territory could come only through § 4403 and Abbott would be correct. However, that junior college complied with § 4410 and the community maintaining it became an area school district. As an area school district, §§ 14-108 E is applicable. That sub-section allows annexation of territory to the area school district under the rules of the State Board of Vocational and Technical Education. Those rules make the territory of annexed dependent school district, Pleasant Hills, a part of the area school district, Oscar Rose, for the annexing independent school district, Midwest City-Del City, was already a part of the Oscar Rose area school district at the time of the annexation. In voting for the annexation, the electors voted to become a part of the Oscar Rose area school district. The tax was levied as authorized by an area school district and not as a community maintaining a community junior college. Legislative acts are to be construed in such manner as to reconcile the different provisions and render them consistent and harmonious, and give intelligent effect to each. Eason Oil Company v. Corporation Commission, Okl., 535 P.2d 283 (1975). Section 4403 applies to a community maintaining a community junior college. Section 4410, with its effect as to applicable law, applies to a community maintaining a community junior college that becomes an area school district thereunder. We find no conflict. We hold the territory of the annexed dependent school district is subject to the levied and assessed tax.

As previously observed, § 4410 was § 1 of Laws 1968, c. 278. It authorized a community maintaining a community junior college to become an area technical school district. Section 4411 was § 2 of that same law. It authorized a two-year college that is a part of the State System of Higher Education to become a similar area school district. The latter section refused the taxing *1102 authority or to affect control in the governing boards and the State Regents for Higher Education.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Estate of Bell-Levine v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2012 OK 112 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2012)
Hatton v. Lynch
2011 OK CIV APP 23 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2010)
Holleyman v. Holleyman
2003 OK 48 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2003)
Mustain v. Grand River Dam Authority
2003 OK 43 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2003)
Ethics Commission v. Keating
1998 OK 36 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1998)
McNeill v. City of Tulsa
1998 OK 2 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1998)
In Re Guardianship of Pruitt
1992 OK CIV APP 154 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1992)
State v. Porky's Jungle Co.
1991 OK CIV APP 56 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1991)
City of Tulsa v. Smittle
1985 OK 37 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1985)
Beavin v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety
1983 OK 34 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1983)
Inexco Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission
1981 OK 44 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1978 OK 129, 586 P.2d 1098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abbott-v-board-of-trustees-of-oscar-rose-etc-okla-1978.