Fun Country Development Authority, Application of, No. 50942
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | DOOLIN; HODGES; LAVENDER, V. C. J., and SIMMS |
| Citation | 1977 OK 138,566 P.2d 1167 |
| Parties | Application of FUN COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY for Approval of Proposed $1,250,000 Fun Country Development Authority First Mortgage Revenue Notes. |
| Docket Number | No. 50942 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1977 |
Page 1167
Approval of Proposed $1,250,000 Fun Country
Development Authority First Mortgage
Revenue Notes.
Original proceedings on Application to Assume Jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction Assumed; Relief Denied.
Floyd, Brandenburg & Rogers, Norman, for petitioner.
DOOLIN, Justice.
This case is submitted on an original and uncontested 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.
Page 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dank v. Benson, No. 94,166.
...[Emphasis added.] 14. Tweedy v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n, 1981 OK 12, 624 P.2d 1049, 1054. 15. Application of Fun Country Development Authority, 1977 OK 138, 566 P.2d 16. State of Okla. ex rel. Dept. of Transp., 1982 OK 36, 646 P.2d 605, 608-609. 17. Cullison, supra note 11 at 1703. 18. Petitione......
-
Tulsa Indus. Auth. v. City of Tulsa, No. 105,460.
...of Oklahoma Department of Transportation, 2003 OK 105, n. 21, 82 P.3d 1000, 1007 (citing Application of Fun Country Development Authority, 1977 OK 138, ¶ 3, 566 P.2d 1167). FN20. Gordon v. Followell, 1964 OK 74, 391 P.2d 242, 243–244, quoting Kahin v. Lewis, 42 Wash.2d 897, 259 P.2d 420 (19......
-
Petition of University Hospitals Authority, No. 90212
...Act violates this Court's proscription against issuing advisory opinions, established in Application of Fun Country Development Authority, 1977 OK 138, 566 P.2d 1167, and we Page 318 hold that it does not do so because the Act called for notice and gave all protestants the opportunity to be......
-
Brennen v. Aston, No. 97,056.
...2000 OK 40, ¶ 7, 5 P.3d 1088; Ethics Comm'n v. Keating, 1998 OK 36, ¶ 28, 958 P.2d 1250; Application of Fun Country Develop. Auth., 1977 OK 138, ¶ 3, 566 P.2d 1167; City of Shawnee v. Taylor, 1943 OK 11, ¶ 4, 132 P.2d 950; Shinn v. Oklahoma City, 1939 OK 29, ¶ 3, 87 P.2d 136. See also, Sate......
-
Dank v. Benson, No. 94,166.
...[Emphasis added.] 14. Tweedy v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n, 1981 OK 12, 624 P.2d 1049, 1054. 15. Application of Fun Country Development Authority, 1977 OK 138, 566 P.2d 16. State of Okla. ex rel. Dept. of Transp., 1982 OK 36, 646 P.2d 605, 608-609. 17. Cullison, supra note 11 at 1703. 18. Petitione......
-
Tulsa Indus. Auth. v. City of Tulsa, No. 105,460.
...of Oklahoma Department of Transportation, 2003 OK 105, n. 21, 82 P.3d 1000, 1007 (citing Application of Fun Country Development Authority, 1977 OK 138, ¶ 3, 566 P.2d 1167). FN20. Gordon v. Followell, 1964 OK 74, 391 P.2d 242, 243–244, quoting Kahin v. Lewis, 42 Wash.2d 897, 259 P.2d 420 (19......
-
Petition of University Hospitals Authority, No. 90212
...Act violates this Court's proscription against issuing advisory opinions, established in Application of Fun Country Development Authority, 1977 OK 138, 566 P.2d 1167, and we Page 318 hold that it does not do so because the Act called for notice and gave all protestants the opportunity to be......
-
Brennen v. Aston, No. 97,056.
...2000 OK 40, ¶ 7, 5 P.3d 1088; Ethics Comm'n v. Keating, 1998 OK 36, ¶ 28, 958 P.2d 1250; Application of Fun Country Develop. Auth., 1977 OK 138, ¶ 3, 566 P.2d 1167; City of Shawnee v. Taylor, 1943 OK 11, ¶ 4, 132 P.2d 950; Shinn v. Oklahoma City, 1939 OK 29, ¶ 3, 87 P.2d 136. See also, Sate......