Application of Fun Country Develop. Authority

1977 OK 138, 566 P.2d 1167, 1977 Okla. LEXIS 650
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 12, 1977
Docket50942
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 1977 OK 138 (Application of Fun Country Develop. Authority) 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
Application of Fun Country Develop. Authority, 1977 OK 138, 566 P.2d 1167, 1977 Okla. LEXIS 650 (Okla. 1977).

Opinion

DOOLIN, Justice.

This case is submitted on an original and uncon tested application by petitioner. Fun Country Development Authority, asks this court to assume jurisdiction and determine the validity of promissory revenue notes or bonds issued to finance the construction, development and expansion of certain television properties. The application further seeks determination of whether the development and expansion of television capabilities as herein contemplated are the proper subjects for a public trust under 60 O.S.1971 § 176 et seq, as amended.

There can be no doubt that this court has in the past assumed jurisdiction and granted relief under exact or similar circumstances; see Application of Southern Oklahoma Development Trust, 470 P.2d 572 (Okl.1970) and In Re: Application of Board of Education of Western Heights Independent School District No. 41, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, 565 P.2d 677 (Okl.1977).

Today we decline to follow these precedents on the grounds that we will issue no further advisory opinions. This is not to say, however, that this court lacks such jurisdiction. The last cited case is but the most recent of a series that should end, and our holding shall not be interpreted as a challenge to such previous opinions or orders of this court.

We are not unmindful of Shotts v. Hugh, 551 P.2d 252 (Okl.1976) and Morrison v. Ardmore Industrial Development Corporation, 444 P.2d 816 (Okl.1968); but point out that in these cases a justiciable controversy existed and that fact together with the public importance of the matter dictated assumption of jurisdiction and granting of relief.

No controversy is here presented, no contest or challenge as to procedure is made.

We decline to issue an advisory opinion.

*1168 JURISDICTION ASSUMED; RELIEF DENIED.

HODGES, C. J., and WILLIAMS, BERRY and BARNES, JJ., concur. LAVENDER, V. C. J., and SIMMS, J., concur in result.

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

Related

TREAT v. STITT
2021 OK 3 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2021)
Leftwich v. Court of Criminal Appeals
2011 OK 80 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2011)
Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of Tulsa
2011 OK 57 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2011)
West v. JUSTICE EX REL. JUSTICE
2008 OK CIV APP 49 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2007)
In Re Oklahoma Department of Transportation
2003 OK 105 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2003)
Tulsa County Budget Board v. Tulsa County Excise Board
2003 OK 103 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2003)
Brennen v. Aston
2003 OK 91 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2003)
Satellite System, Inc. v. Birch Telecom of Oklahoma, Inc.
2002 OK 61 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2002)
Dank v. Benson
2000 OK 40 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2000)
Petition of University Hospitals Authority
953 P.2d 314 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1998)
Sisson by and Through Allen v. Elkins
801 P.2d 722 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1990)
In re L. N.
1980 OK CR 72 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1980)
Matter of LN
1980 OK CR 72 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1980)
Application of Goodwin
1979 OK 106 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1977 OK 138, 566 P.2d 1167, 1977 Okla. LEXIS 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/application-of-fun-country-develop-authority-okla-1977.