Rollow v. West

1971 OK 3, 479 P.2d 962
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJanuary 12, 1971
DocketNo. 44560
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 1971 OK 3 (Rollow v. West) 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
Rollow v. West, 1971 OK 3, 479 P.2d 962 (Okla. 1971).

Opinion

McINERNEY, Justice.

The Southern Oklahoma Development Association (SODA) is a voluntary association of seven counties, and some cities and towns within the counties, organized pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, 74 O.S.Supp.1970, §§ 1001-1008 (S.L. 1965). It seeks to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn three buildings in downtown Ada for a parking lot on behalf of the Southern Oklahoma Development Trust, a public trust created pursuant to 60 O.S.1961, § 176 et seq. The landowners lodge this action to prohibit the condemnation for the asserted reason that SODA has no power of eminent domain.

Our inquiry need extend no further than to determine whether SODA is granted the power of eminent domain under the Interlocal Cooperation Act. We hold that a separate legal or administrative entity, created by agreement of the signatory local governmental units or public agencies, is not vested with the power of eminent domain by the Interlocal Cooperation Act.

The Act by its terms contemplates cooperation or joint exercise between the various governmental entities of activities permitted of the individual entities. The Act does not create new powers to be exercised independently by the legal or administrative agency. 74 O.S.Supp.1970, § 1004. We find no clear legislative authority in the Interlocal Cooperation Act to justify the taking of property in derogation of the rights of citizens.

It follows that the power of eminent domain is not granted to SODA by the Act. The mere statutory authorization for voluntary associations of public agencies created by written agreement is not a specific enactment by the Legislature designating the occasions, the modes, and the agencies by and through which the fundamental power to exercise the right of eminent domain may be placed in operation. Harn v. State, 184 Okl. 306, 87 P.2d 127 (1939).

Our conclusion is limited solely to the condemnation question presented and does not affect the validity of the bond issue approved in Application of Southern Oklahoma Development Trust, Okl., 470 P.2d 572 (1970).

The writ is granted.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Opinion No. (2008)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 2008
Opinion No. (2006)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 2006
Opinion No. (2003)
Nebraska Attorney General Reports, 2003
Opinion No. (1995)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1995
Opinion No. (1994)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1994
Pease v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS, OSAGE COUNTY
1976 OK 62 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1976)
Opinion No. 75-273 (1975) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1975
Opinion No.
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1975
Opinion No. 73-206 (1973) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1973
Opinion No. 72-120 (1972) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1972

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1971 OK 3, 479 P.2d 962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rollow-v-west-okla-1971.