Associated Industries v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

12 Citing cases

  1. In re Initiative Petition No. 314

    1980 OK 174 (Okla. 1981)   Cited 35 times
    Explaining that unconstitutional changes proposed by amending an existing article could have been effected through amendment by new article without violating the single-subject requirement

    Justice R.L. Williams. More germane to the issue before us is a more recent decision, Associated Industries v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 176 Okla. 120, 55 P.2d 79 (1936), where an initiative was challenged for, among other things, violating Art. 24, § 1. The Court issued a permanent injunction restraining enforcement of Initiative Petition No. 144, concerning old age pensions after the amendment had been submitted and adopted by the voters, holding that because of failures to comply with statutory procedure the measure had not been legally submitted to the voters for approval or rejection and therefore had not been approved by the people in accord with the Constitution. Although the decision was based on other grounds, the Court noted the importance of an Art. 24, § 1, challenge to an initiative:

  2. Dental Society v. Secretary of State

    294 Mich. 503 (Mich. 1940)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the Secretary of State's duties, which are only ministerial even though the performance thereof may entail some exercise of discretion and judgment, include the right to make a facial evaluation of obviously fake names on a petition

    Thompson v. State, supra; Fleming v. Fones, 230 Mo. App. 1147 ( 91 S.W. [2d] 208); State, ex rel. Kemper, v. Carter, 257 Mo. 52 ( 165 S.W. 773); State, ex rel. Ayres, v. Amsberry, 104 Neb. 273 ( 177 N.W. 179, reversed on rehearing on other grounds [178 N.W. 822]); Coghlan v. Cuskelly, 62 N.D. 275 ( 244 N.W. 39); State, ex rel. Herbert, v. Mitchell, 136 Ohio St. 1 ( 22 N.E. [2d] 907); State, ex rel. McCrehen, v. Brown, 108 Ohio St. 454 ( 141 N.E. 69); State ex rel. v. Olcott, 62 Ore. 277 ( 125 P. 303); Kellaher v. Kozer, 112 Ore. 149 ( 288 P. 1086); State, ex rel. Case, v. Superior Court, 81 Wn. 623 ( 143 P. 461, Ann. Cas. 1916 B, 838); 59 C. J. § 278, p. 706. Only when the Constitution itself (Arkansas Constitution, am. 7; North Dakota Constitution, art. 2, § 25; Power v. Robertson, 130 Miss. 188 [93 So. 769]), or a statute ( Associated Industries v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 176 Okla. 120 [ 55 P.2d 79]; Miller v. Armstrong, supra; State, ex rel. Evich, v. Superior Court, 188 Wn. 19 [ 61 P.2d 143]), expressly states that the secretary of State shall determine the sufficiency of the petition is the secretary of State held to have quasi-judicial power. The Constitution (1908), art. 5, § 1, does not permit the secretary of State to make an independent investigation.

  3. State ex Rel. v. Long

    178 Okla. 409 (Okla. 1936)   Cited 11 times
    In McNeill, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment for defendants in an election contest action on the grounds that, inter alia, the plaintiffs failed to prove that lack of compliance with statutory notice requirements had an impact on the election results and failed to prove the existence of any fraud in the conduct of the election.

    The validity of an election depends upon whether or not the electors had actual notice thereof and participated therein and whether or not a failure to comply with the law deprived the electors of an opportunity of voting. It is urged that certain language used in the case of Associated Industries v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 176 Okla. 120, 55 P.2d 79, is contrary to the determination herein. But the language relied upon is used in the discussion of wholly different issues presented therein and has no application to the decisive question herein.

  4. Kiesel v. Honorable Sec'y of State Michael Rogers

    2020 OK 65 (Okla. 2020)

    See In re: State Questions No. 805 , 2020 OK 45 at ¶2, 473 P.3d 466 ; Threadgill v. Cross , 1910 OK 165, ¶5, 26 Okla. 403, 109 P. 558 (distinguished on other grounds by In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642 , 1992 OK 122, 838 P.2d 1 ). Other duties required of Respondent are derived from statute, including 34 O.S. Supp. 2015 § 8. This Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of these statutory provisions, see Assoc. of Indus. of Okla. v. Okla. Tax. Comm'n , 1936 OK 156, ¶0, 176 Okla. 120, 55 P.2d 79, and determined they must be complied with. Id. ; In re Initiative Petition No. 281 , 1967 OK 230, ¶50, 434 P.2d 941.

  5. In re Askins Prop

    2007 OK 25 (Okla. 2007)   Cited 11 times

    1] (A)(4)(g) and concluding that for the purposes of lifting the yearly five percent (5%) cap/limit on the fair cash value for ad valorem tax purposes a transfer of title to a limited liability company in such a situation will not be considered a transfer, conveyance or change of title to another person within the meaning of OKLA. CONST. art. 10, § 8B. ¶ 16 It was stated in In re Initiative Petition, No. 281, State Question No. 441, 1967 OK 230, 434 P.2d 941, 952 (citing Associated Industries of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1936 OK 156, 55 P.2d 79): Whether a provision of a Constitution be self-executing or not be self-executing, supplemental legislation facilitating the carrying into effect of the rights secured, and safeguarding the rights against abuses, may be desirable; but such legislation must be in harmony with the spirit of the Constitution and must not curtail the rights reserved or exceed the limitations specified.

  6. In re Initiative Petition No. 364

    1996 OK 129 (Okla. 1996)   Cited 15 times

    " 214 P. at 188. In Associated Industries of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 176 Okla. 120, 55 P.2d 79, (1936), the Court explained that the limitations on the power of the people to amend their constitution must be carefully guarded and enforced. The Court stated:

  7. IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 317, ETC

    1982 OK 78 (Okla. 1982)   Cited 13 times

    Were I convinced that the Legislature did in fact intend to authorize the suspension that is sanctioned by today's opinion, I would seriously question the constitutional validity of § 9 D. Fundamental law will not give sanction to legislation that impairs or burdens the integrity of our initiative or referendum process or is plainly inconsistent with the legislative responsibility to prevent corruption. State ex rel. Caldwell v. Hooker, 22 Okla. 712, 98 P. 964, 965 [1908] and Associated Industries v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 176 Okla. 120, 55 P.2d 79. The lawmaking body stands commanded by Art. 5 § 8, Okla. Const., to guard against all forms of corrupt practice by the enactment of appropriate measures.

  8. In re Initiative Petition No. 281, St. Q. No. 441

    1967 OK 230 (Okla. 1967)   Cited 32 times
    Ascertaining and giving effect to the meaning of constitutional provisions, as understood by those who framed and adopted the Constitution, is first rule in construing constitutional provisions

    Whether a provision of a Constitution be self-executing or not be self-executing, supplemental legislation facilitating the carrying into effect of the rights secured, and safeguarding the rights against abuses, may be desirable; but such legislation must be in harmony with the spirit of the Constitution and must not curtail the rights reserved or exceed the limitations specified. Associated Industries of Oklahoma et al. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission (1936), 176 Okla. 120, 55 P.2d 79. Therefore, statutes such as 34 O.S. 1961 § 8[ 34-8], supra, enacted for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Constitution relating to the initiative and referendum powers and rights reserved by the people, and to aid the exercise of such rights, must be construed in harmony with those provisions of the Constitution, not as changing the natural signification of the words used therein. Consequently, although it is necessary to comply with the provisions of 34 O.S. 1961 § 8[ 34-8], supra, requiring the filing with the Secretary of State of a true and exact copy of the proposed petition before a petition is circulated and signed by the electors, and requiring that the signed copies of an initiative petition be filed with the Secretary of State within ninety days after such pre-circulation filing, those statutory provisions do not change the time or event as of which, according to the Constitution, the question of which general election for state officers is "the las

  9. Barnes v. State, ex Rel. Pinkney

    204 A.2d 787 (Md. 1964)   Cited 34 times
    Discussing the statutory predecessor to § 6–203, Md.Code (1964 Supp.), Art. 33, § 169

    Section 169 is clearly designed to provide additional means by which fraudulent or otherwise improper signatures upon a referendum petition may be detected. If the provisions of the section were only directory, laws enacted by the Legislature could be suspended, even if the Secretary of State had found that the referendum petition lacked the necessary number of valid signatures. Courts in other jurisdictions have held that similar statutory provisions are mandatory rather than directory. Associated Industries v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 176 Okla. 120, 55 P.2d 79 (1936); Ford v. Mitchell, 103 Mont. 99, 61 P.2d 815 (1936); State, ex rel. Winter v. Swanson, 138 Neb. 597, 294 N.W. 200 (1940). The appellant further contends that, even if there were an insufficient number of valid signatures on the referendum petitions and the Secretary of State so found, the filing of the petition of itself suspended the law, unless and until it was judicially determined that the valid signatures on the petitions were insufficient. To support his argument, he relies upon a phrase in the opinion in First Continental v. Director, 229 Md. 293, 301, 183 A.2d 347 (1962), that "only a court can effectively hold that an attempted referral is fatally faulty."

  10. Allen v. Burkhart

    1962 OK 279 (Okla. 1963)   Cited 18 times

    See, also City Council of City of McAlester v. Milwee, 31 Okla. 620, 122 P. 173, 40 L.R.A., N.S., 576. See also Associated Industries of Okla. v. Okla. Tax Comm., 176 Okla. 120, 55 P.2d 79. Respondents further argue "that it would be a violation of the rights of the citizens of Oklahoma, secured to them by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to hold that State Question 408 did not receive the requisite vote for passage."