State Ex Rel. Poulos v. State Board of Equalization

1976 OK 41, 552 P.2d 1138, 1976 Okla. LEXIS 681

• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Decided: March 30, 1976
• Docket: 48202
• Status: Published

Opinions

ORDER

Upon consideration of the “Plan of Compliance” filed by the State Board of Equalization January 7, 1976, and after consideration of oral and written arguments presented in support thereof and in opposition thereto on March 2,1976,

THE COURT FINDS:

(1) The proposed “Plan of Compliance” should be rejected because of a variance between 8% and 17.91% which permits inequality of valuation among the counties of this state.

(2) That a Writ of Mandamus be issued directing the State Board of Equalization to comply with its constitutional and statutory duties to adjust and equalize the valuation of real and personal property of all the counties of the State of Oklahoma.

(3)That the Board shall satisfy its constitutional and statutory duty as set out in our previous decision in this matter by setting a definite percentile equally applicable to all counties, but may take into consideration the .following:

(a) A permissible deviation not to exceed three percentage points above or below the assessment rate.

(b) That the necessary adjustments to achieve uniformity as set out here be implemented within a three year period beginning on the date which the counties next certify their assessment to the State Board of Equalization with at least one-third of the movement necessary to meet said level to be accomplished in each year.

(c) Provided, however, that nothing herein shall prevent the Board from establishing a percentile or percentiles based upon different classifications of real and personal property as may now or hereafter be authorized by acts of the legislature.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a Writ of Mandamus be issued and the State Board of Equalization is hereby required to comply with their constitutional and statutory duties to adjust and equalize the valuation of real and personal property of the several counties in the state within the permissible limits as set out herein.

WILLIAMS, C. J., and DAVISON, BERRY, LAVENDER, and BARNES, JJ., concur. IRWIN, J., dissents. SIMMS, J., concurs in part, dissents in part. DOOLIN, J., concurs in part, dissents in part.