State ex rel. Pollution Control Co. v. Kerr McGee Corp., 46946
Decision Date | 18 February 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 46946,46946 |
Citation | 532 P.2d 1386,1975 OK 28 |
Parties | The STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. the POLUTION CONTROL CO., Appellant, v. KERR McGEE CORPORATION, a corporation, et al., Appellees. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen. by Allen Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William Gorden, Jr., Legal Intern, for appellant.
Rucker, Tabor, McBride & Hopkins, Tulsa, Kerr, Davis, Irvine, Burbage & Green, Inc. by Francis S. Irvine, Oklahoma City, for appellee, Kerr-McGee Corp.
Campbell & Campbell, Tulsa, Fitzgerald, Houston & Worthington by Clee Fitzgerald, Stillwater, for appellee, Midland Cooperative, Inc. HODGES, Justice.
The Pollution Control Coordinating Board (Board) contends that the District Court erred when it sustained the general and special demurrers of Kerr-McGee Corporation (Kerr-McGee), Midland Cooperative Inc. (Midland) and Cushing Tank Car Company, Inc. (Cushing) in its pre-trial order.
The Board brought an action against Kerr-McGee, Midland, and Cushing alleging that as the result of their combined negligence deleterious substances were deposited into Skull Creek which subsequently flowed into the Cimmaron River resulting in the death of 171,804 fish. The action was based on 82 O.S.1971 § 931 et seq. and on common law negligence. Replacement costs of the killed fish and punitive damages were sought.
The general demurrer was sustained because the trial court found that the petition failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. We find that the general demurrer should not have been sustained. We held in Employers Casualty Company v. Ideal Cement Co., 511 P.2d 1090, 1092 (Okl.1973) that:
It is provided by § 937(c) of the Pollution Control Coordinating Act of 1968 (now 82 O.S.1971 § 937(b):
The trial court also sustained the special demurrer of Kerr-McGee, Midland and Cushing based on the contention that the measure of damages provided by the statute violated their constitutional guaranty of due process of law because the penalty imposed so greatly out of proportion to the possible actual damages sustained by the state. We do not agree.
The enforcement of a penalty clause has been held in proper cases to constitute due process of law. See Robinson v. State, 116 Okl. 131, 244 P. 44 (1926) for list of cases. The enforcement of the statute in question tends to give, rather than take from the parties, equal protection of law. The statute, 82 O.S.1971 § 937(b) provides for a hearing in civil court and 82 O.S.1971 § 936(e), (f) and (i) require notice and hearing.
St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63, 66, 40 S.Ct. 71, 64 L.Ed. 139, 141 (1919), quoted Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U.S. 512, 523, 6 S.Ct. 110, 29 L.Ed. 463, 466 (1885):
'* * * the power of the state to impose fines and penalties for a violation of its statutory requirements is coeval with government; and the mode in which they shall be enforced, whether at the suit of a private party, or at the suit of the public, and what disposition shall be made of the amounts collected, are merely matters of legislative discretion * * *.'
Penalties may be used to enforce general police regulations of the state. Broadhead v. Monaghan, 238 Miss. 239, 117 So.2d 881, 892 (1960) quoted 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 640, p. 899 concerning the power of the legislature to provide penalties:
'While the power to provide penalties rests in the legislative branch of the government, and cannot be delegated, the power to inflict the penalties does not belong to the legislature but to the judiciary, which cannot inflict them without first affording an opportunity to be heard in court, although in some instances where the act punishable is not a crime it has been vested in administrative officers without resulting in denial of due process. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sun Valley Co. v. City of Sun Valley
...621 (1980); Danson v. Casey, 382 A.2d 1238 (Pa.1978); Levine v. Whalen, 384 N.Y.S.2d 721 (1976); State ex rel. Pollution Control Co. v. Kerr McGee Corp., 532 P.2d 1386 (Okla.1975); County Counsel for Montgomery County v. Investors Fund, Inc., 312 A.2d 225 (Ct.App.Md.1973); Southern Illinois......
-
Kimberly v. DeWitt
...facts stated in the petition would entitle the plaintiff to Any relief, a demurrer should be overruled. State ex rel. Pollution Control Co. v. Kerr McGee Corp., Okl., 532 P.2d 1386, 1387; Employers Casualty Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., Okl., 511 P.2d 1090, 1092; McKenzie v. Feldman, Okl., 434 P......
-
State ex rel. Pollution Control Coordinating Bd. v. Kerr-McGee Corp.
...State appealed and this court reversed and remanded for trial in an opinion by Justice Hodges, State ex rel. Pollution Control Co. v. Kerr-McGee Corporation, 532 P.2d 1386 (Okl.1975). Section 937(c) of the 1968 Act Any person, firm or corporation who violates any of the provisions of, or fa......
-
Lay v. Tulsa County Independent School Dist. No. 3, 49491
...to a petition is to be overruled if the facts, well pleaded, set forth any basis for a cause of action. State ex rel. Pollution Control Co. v. Kerr McGee Corp., 532 P.2d 1386 (Okl.1975). Legal conclusions should not be pleaded and must be ignored in testing a petition. Mohoma Oil Co. v. Amb......