Oklahoma Operating Co. v. State Dry Cleaners Bd. of Okl.
| Decision Date | 15 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 37329,37329 |
| Citation | 306 P.2d 295 |
| Parties | OKLAHOMA OPERATING COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE DRY CLEANERS BOARD OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Evidence examined, and held, that the order of the State Dry Cleaners' Board of Oklahoma fixing a minimum price for pick-up and delivery service of 10cents over a minimum price for cash and carry service is sustained by substantial evidence and the judgment of the trial court upon review sustaining the order is supported by the evidence.
2. As a general rule, findings, decisions and orders of an administrative body acting under legislative authority, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, are presumptively correct and valid, and where approved by a trial court will not be disturbed upon appeal in the absence of a showing of illegality.
3. A law may be general and uniform in its nature and within the recognized power of the legislature, although in its application to a given industry it may not affect each member thereof in a uniform pattern.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Clarence Mills, Judge.
From an order of the State Dry Cleaners' Board establishing a minimum price for pick-up and delivery service different from that fixed for a cash and carry service as applied to operators doing a cleaning and pressing business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, the plaintiff appealed to the District Court by transcript. From the judgment affirming the order of the Board, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Hubert Gibson, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Orel Busby, Ada, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Fred Hansen, First Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Certain individuals doing business under trade names engaged in the cleaning, pressing and dyeing service in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, filed their application with the State Dry Cleaners' Board of Oklahoma, created under Title 59 O.S.1951 § 741 et seq., requesting a hearing and approval of a price agreement refixing minimum prices affecting their industry. Pursuant to the requirements of the statute notice of the application and the date of hearing thereof was published by the Board. Also, notices of the application and date of hearing were mailed to all persons engaged in the industry other than those appearing upon the application. The applicants, the Oklahoma Cleaners Association, and the Oklahoma Operating Company appeared by counsel at the hearing before the Board. A number of witnesses testified in support of the application and upon such proof, supplemented by documentary evidence, the Board entered its order refixing minimum prices for cleaning, pressing and dyeing applicable to the industry in Oklahoma County, insofar as said minimum prices fixed a differential for pick-up and delivery service from that fixed for a cash and carry service.
The Oklahoma Operating Company appealed from the order of the Board by lodging a transcript of the proceedings in the District Court of Oklahoma County as authorized by statute, Title 59 O.S.1951 § 759. They allege in their petition as follows:
'That said Order is unreasonable in that it fixes arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory price differentials between cash and carry and pick up and delivery service.
'That said Order is unreasonable and unfair to the public and is not necessary to promote the public welfare, health and safety, and is an unwarranted interference with individual liberty.
'That said Order is unlawful in that defendant has attempted to fix prices for delivery services without statutory authority to do so and in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.'
The Board, in addition to its general denial, filed an answer in which it alleged:
'Defendant specifically denies that said order is unreasonable, or unfair to the public, or fixes arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory price differentials between cash-and-carry and pickup-and-delivery services, or is not necessary to promote the public welfare, health, or safety, or is an unwarranted interference with individual liberty.
'Defendant specifically denies that said order was made without statutory authority therefor, or that the same is in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
'Defendant specifically alleges that said order and the prices fixed therein are necessary to stabilize the industry, and are reasonable and will promote the public welfare, health and safety.'
Thereafter the parties entered into a stipulation submitting the case to the court, without the intervention of a jury, upon the transcript of the evidence taken at the hearing before the Board. The trial court entered its judgment on the 17th day of February, 1956, holding that the State Dry Cleaners' Board of Oklahoma was authorized under pertinent statute, to enter its order fixing a higher minimum price for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sipes v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety
...at the administrative level, the district court has before it a presumptively correct and valid order. Oklahoma Operating Co. v. State Dry Cleaners Bd., 306 P.2d 295 (Okla.1957); Clarkson v. State ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 1994 OK CIV APP 39, 872 P.2d 411. In Oklahoma, our district cour......
-
Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Burris
...be valid and the proceedings are free from prejudicial error to the appellant. Laws 1963, c. 371 § 22.11 Oklahoma Operating Company v. State Dry Cleaners Board, 306 P.2d 295 (Okl.1957). ...
-
Banking Bd. of State of Okl. v. Wilkerson
...in their arguments points to any prejudicial error. This lack of evidence, coupled with our holding in Oklahoma Operating Co. v. State Dry Cleaners Board, 306 P.2d 295 (Okl.1975), that as a general rule findings, decisions and orders of an administrative body, in the absence of evidence to ......