Edwards v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Canadian Cnty.
| Decision Date | 22 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 113,697.,113,697. |
| Citation | 378 P.3d 54,2015 OK 58 |
| Parties | Randall EDWARDS, Stanley A. Wallace, Jr., Donald L. Young, Mortimer J. Bickerstaff, Sandra Bohannon, Mary K. Hollingsworth, Kent K. Hollingsworth, Kent K. Mathers, and Linda Ramey, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CANADIAN COUNTY, Oklahoma by and through its Members Dave Anderson, Phil Carson, and Jack Stewart, and Dave Anderson, Phil Carson, and Jack Stewart individually, Defendants/Appellants. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Mark Henricksen, Lanita Henricksen, Henricksen & Henricksen Lawyers, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiffs/Appellees.
Fenton Ramey, Fenton R. Ramey, Inc., Yukon, OK, for Plaintiffs/Appellees.
Heather R. Darby, James B. Robertson, Carol Price Dillingham, District 21 District Attorney's Office, Norman, OK, for Defendants/Appellants.
¶ 1 The question presented to this Court is whether the trial court committed reversible error when it issued a temporary injunction1 ordering Defendants/Appellants to continue funding the services of the Canadian County Juvenile Justice Center from proceeds generated from a 1996 .035% sales tax (Tax). We hold that it did not.
¶ 2 This cause concerns a dispute between Defendants/Appellants The Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County, Oklahoma by and through its Members Dave Anderson, Phil Carson, and Jack Stewart, and Dave Anderson, Phil Carson and Jack Stewart individually (collectively “Board”), and certain citizens and officers of Canadian County, Plaintiffs/Appellees Randall Edwards, Stanley A. Wallace, Jr., Donald L. Young, Mortimer J. Bickerstaff, Sandra Bohannon, Mary K. Hollingsworth, Kent K. Hollingsworth, Kent K. Mathers and Linda Ramey (“Citizens”), over the legal usage of funds generated from a sales tax enacted by the voters of Canadian County in 1996. On August 27, 1996, the voters of Canadian County adopted the Tax in question through the following proposition that appeared on the ballot:
Official Democratic Absentee Ballot, Primary Election, August 27, 1996, Canadian County, Oklahoma, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4 and Defendants' Exhibit 2, Tab 8.
¶ 3 Two resolutions adopted by the Board preceded the public vote on the Tax. The first, Resolution No. 96–20, was adopted by the Board on May 28, 1996. In addition to detailed language governing the application of the Tax, Resolution No. 96–20 contained the following operative language:
[a] resolution providing for funds for Canadian County, Oklahoma; authorizing the calling of a sales tax election levying a .35 of one cent sales tax on the gross receipts or proceeds on certain sales for an unlimited period, such tax to be used for construction, financing and equipping of a juvenile delinquents detention facility and juvenile justice facilities in Canadian County, including design, construction, expenses, operations, equipment and furnishings; fixing an effective date; making provisions separable; and declaring an emergency.
Resolution No. 96–20, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 and Defendants' Exhibit 2, Tab 5.
¶ 4 On the same date, the Board also adopted Resolution No. 96–21, which authorized the calling of a special election and contains the proposition actually submitted to the voters of Canadian County. Resolution No. 96–21 contains similar language to that quoted above from Resolution No. 96–20, but without the phrase “authorizing the calling of a sales tax election”:
[a] resolution providing for funds for Canadian County, Oklahoma; levying a .35 of one cent sales tax on the gross receipts or proceeds on certain sales for an unlimited period, such tax to be used for financing, construction and equipping of a juvenile delinquents detention facility and juvenile justice facilities in Canadian County, including design, construction, expenses, operations, equipment and furnishings; fixing an effective date; making provisions separable; and declaring an emergency.
Resolution No. 96–21, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 and Defendants' Exhibit 2, Tab 6.
¶ 5 The above-quoted language from Resolution No. 96–21 is the text that actually appeared on the ballot submitted to the voters of Canadian County, as shown by both the Election Proclamation, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 and Defendants' Exhibit 2, Tab 7, and the ballot itself, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4 and Defendants' Exhibit 2, Tab 8. However, while Resolution No. 96–21 incorporates by reference Resolution No. 96–20, it also contains additional language that is not found in Resolution No. 96–20. Specifically, Section 3 of Resolution No. 96–21 provides, in pertinent part:
[t]hat by reason of said County being without adequate funds with which to furnish required public services, it is deemed and declared necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, that said election be held without delay.
¶ 6 Resolution No. 96–21 was approved by the voters of Canadian County on August 27, 1996. Since the enactment of the Tax, it is undisputed that the funds generated have been used exclusively for juvenile facilities and a variety of juvenile programs and services in Canadian County.2
¶ 7 In response to concerns raised over the legality of using funds generated by the Tax to pay for juvenile programs and services, in addition to the physical structures, an Attorney General Opinion was requested. The Attorney General issued an opinion concerning the matter on October 31, 2014, Question Submitted by: The Honorable Ron Justice, State Senator, District 23, 2014 OK AG 15 (Opinion). The Attorney General examined Resolution No. 96–20 and determined that the language did not authorize use of the Tax for the funding of programs, salaries and expenses related to operation of the juvenile bureau, or even certain aspects of the physical facilities. Opinion, 2014 OK AG 15, ¶ 19.
¶ 8 In the wake of the Opinion, the Board ceased using the Tax for funding juvenile programs, services, and salaries deemed outside the purpose of the Tax by the Attorney General, and instead sought other funding sources for those items.3 Citizens filed suit against the Board in the District Court of Canadian County on December 5, 2014, and filed an amended petition on December 8, 2015. Citizens sought declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction pending a declaratory ruling, and a writ of mandamus by way of ancillary relief. The trial court held a hearing on Citizens' request for a temporary injunction on January 8, 2015.
¶ 9 In an order filed on January 28, 2015, the trial court granted Citizens' request for a temporary injunction. The trial court determined: 1) Citizens were likely to prevail in their request for a declaratory judgment; 2) the Board would not suffer irreparable harm if the temporary injunction was issued; and 3) Citizens would suffer irreparable harm if the temporary injunction was not issued. The Board appealed, and filed its Petition in Error on February 4, 2015. The parties filed a Joint Motion to Retain on April 10, 2015, which this Court granted on April 13, 2015. The cause was assigned to this office on July 10, 2015.
¶ 10 The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent the perpetuation of a wrong or the doing of an act whereby the rights of the moving party may be materially invaded, injured, or endangered. Oklahoma Public Employees Ass'n v. Oklahoma Military Dept., 2014 OK 48, ¶ 15, 330 P.3d 497 ; Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 1991 OK 41, ¶ 21, 810 P.2d 1270 (overruled on other grounds by DuLaney v. Oklahoma State Dept. of Health, 1993 OK 113, 868 P.2d 676 ). A temporary injunction protects a court's ability to render a meaningful decision on merits of the controversy. Oklahoma Public Employees Ass'n, 2014 OK 48, ¶ 15, 330 P.3d 497 ; Sharp, 1991 OK 41, ¶ 21, 810 P.2d 1270.
¶ 11 A judgment issuing or refusing to issue an injunction will not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court has abused its discretion or the decision is clearly against the weight of the evidence. Dowell v. Pletcher, 2013 OK 50, ¶ 5, 304 P.3d 457 ; Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 1996 OK 109, ¶ 4, 925 P.2d 546. Matters involving the granting or denial of injunctive relief are of equitable concern. Dowell, 2013 OK 50, ¶ 5, 304 P.3d 457 ; Brown ex rel. Brown v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Ass'n, 2005 OK 88, ¶ 11, 125 P.3d 1219. Accordingly, this Court will consider all evidence on appeal. Dowell v. Pletcher,
2013 OK 50, ¶ 5, 304 P.3d 457 ; Brown ex rel. Brown, 2005 OK 88, ¶ 11, 125 P.3d 1219.
¶ 12 To obtain a temporary injunction, a plaintiff must show that four factors weigh in their favor: 1) the likelihood of success on the merits; 2) irreparable harm to the party seeking the relief if the injunction is denied; 3) their threatened injury outweighs the injury the opposing party will suffer under the injunction; and 4) the injunction is in the public interest. Oklahoma Public Employees Ass'n v. Oklahoma Military Dept., 2014 OK 48, ¶ 9, 330 P.3d 497 ; Dowell v. Pletcher, 2013 OK 50, ¶ 7, 304 P.3d 457. The right to injunctive relief must be established by clear and convincing evidence and the nature of the injury must not be nominal, theoretical, or speculative. Dowell, 2013 OK 50, ¶ 7, 304 P.3d 457 ; Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 1996 OK 109, ¶ 5, 925 P.2d 546.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Okla. Ass'n of Broadcasters, Inc. v. City of Norman
...the Court may be observed in opinions addressing similar factors used to show a need for a temporary injunction. Edwards v. Board of County Com'rs of Canadian County, 2015 OK 58, ¶ 12, 378 P.3d 54, 59 ("To obtain a temporary injunction, a plaintiff must show that four factors weigh in their......
-
Okla. Ass'n of Broadcasters, Inc. v. City of Norman
...the Court may be observed in opinions addressing similar factors used to show a need for a temporary injunction. Edwards v. Board of County Com'rs of Canadian County, 2015 OK 58, ¶ 12, 378 P.3d 54, 59 ("To obtain a temporary injunction, a plaintiff must show that four factors weigh in their......
-
Crystal Bay Estates Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Cox
...of injunctive relief are of equitable concern. Accordingly, this Court will consider all evidence on appeal." Edwards v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Canadian Cnty. , 2015 OK 58, ¶ 11, 378 P.3d 54 (citations omitted).Injunction is an extraordinary remedy and relief by this means should not be gr......
-
Revolution Res., LLC v. Annecy, LLC
...OK 6, ¶50, 609 P.2d 733. Matters involving the granting or denial of injunctive relief are of equitable concern. Edwards v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Canadian Cty., 2015 OK 58, ¶11, 378 P.3d 54. To grant or refuse to grant an injunction is generally within the sound discretion of the trial cou......