Lawrence v. Schellstede

20 Citing cases

  1. Public Housing Admin. v. Housing Auth. of Bogalusa

    242 La. 519 (La. 1962)   Cited 12 times
    In Public Housing Administration v. Housing Authority of the City of Bogolusa [sic], 137 So.2d 315, a housing authority was subject to a constitutional restriction prohibiting public entities from investing in mutual companies in which they would receive a share of the profits.

    In support of this last contention, counsel cite cases from eleven of our sister States wherein it has been held, in construing constitutional provisions somewhat similar to those of Section 12 of Article 4 of our Constitution, that state agencies did not violate the respective restraints in purchasing policies issued by mutual companies, thereby becoming members in such corporations. See State v. Northwestern Mutual Life Inc. Co., 86 Ariz. 50, 340 P.2d 200 (1959); Clifton v. School District No. 14 of Russellville, 192 Ark. 140, 90 S.W.2d 508 (1936); Miller v. Johnson County Auditor et al., 4 Cal.2d 265, 48 P.2d 956 (1935); Louisville Board of Insurance Agents v. Jefferson County Board of Education, Ky., 309 S.W.2d 40 (1958); McMahon v. Cooney, 95 Mont. 138, 25 P.2d 131 (1933); French v. Mayor of Millville, 66 N.J.L. 392, 49 A. 465 (1901); Fuller v. Lockhart et al., 209 N.C. 61, 182 S.E. 733 (1935); Huffman et al. v. Schellstede et al., 348 P.2d 1078, (Okla.S.Ct. 1960); Johnson v. School District No. 1 of Multnomah County, 128 Or. 9, 270 P. 764, 273 P. 386 (1928); Downing et al. v. School District of Erie, 297 Pa. 474, 147 A. 239 (1929); Burton v. School District No. 19 et al., 47 Wyo. 462, 38 P.2d 610, (1934). Only one State Supreme Court, that of our neighboring State of Texas, has announced views similar to those expressed by the Court of Appeal herein.

  2. State ex rel. Brown v. City of Warr Acres,946 P.2d 1140

    1997 OK 117 (Okla. 1997)   Cited 26 times
    Determining the term "public purpose" "should not be construed `in a narrow or restrictive sense.'"

    That provision's correlative limitation, section 17, was "adopted for the purpose of preventing the investment of public funds in private enterprises." Lawrence v. Schellstede, 348 P.2d 1078, 1082 (Okla. 1960). Section 14 of article X of the Oklahoma Constitution provides:

  3. City of Oklahoma City v. Hamilton

    984 P.2d 247 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    The provision was intended to prevent public investment in private enterprises. Lawrence v. Schellstede, 1960 OK 10, ¶ 24, 348 P.2d 1078, 1082; Rural Water Dist. No. 3 v. Antlers Pub.Works Auth., 1993 OK CIV APP 185, ¶ 8, 866 P.2d 458, 460. City suggests that, if Appellees are permitted to recover the costs of moving the bailed property stored in their warehouse to another location, it would be "the same as a friendly private purchase of a fee simple title." We do not agree.

  4. Opinion No. 04-15

    Opinion No. 04-15 (2004) (Ops.Okla.Atty.Gen. Apr. 22, 2004)

    ¶ 13 Section 17 is "a limitation, and not a grant of power, and was adopted for the purpose of preventing the investment of public funds in private enterprises." Lawrence v. Schellstede,348 P.2d 1078, 1082 (Okla. 1960); see also State ex rel. Brown v. City of Warr Acres,946 P.2d 1140, 1144 (Okla. 1997) (quoting Lawrence, at 1082).

  5. Opinion No. 04-6

    Opinion No. 04-6 (2004) (Ops.Okla.Atty.Gen. Mar. 5, 2004)

    Prohibitions of Article X, Section 17 do not apply to your question, as that section involves a gift to a public institution rather than to a private entity. See Lawrence v. Schellstede,348 P.2d 1078, 1082 (Okla. 1960). Further, the constitutional restrictions on cities and towns in Oklahoma do not apply to municipal-beneficiary public trusts.

  6. Immel v. Facilities

    2021 OK 39 (Okla. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    That provision's correlative limitation, section 17, was "adopted for the purpose of preventing the investment of public funds in private enterprises." State ex rel. Brown v. City of Warr Acres, 1997 OK 117, ¶ 11, 946, P.2d 1140, 1143-44 (citing Lawrence v. Schellstede, 1960 OK 10, 348 P.2d 1078). The term "public purpose" in article X, section 14 should not be construed "in a narrow or restrictive sense."

  7. Willow Wind v. Midwest City

    1989 OK 171 (Okla. 1989)   Cited 11 times

    Therefore, if the legislature is precluded from authorizing a city to appropriate money for the benefit of a corporation, association, or individual, then a municipality is precluded from appropriating such funds. Lawrence v. Schellstede, 348 P.2d 1078, 1080 (Okla. 1960), holds that § 17 was adopted for the purpose of preventing the investment of public funds in private enterprises. In citing Lawrence, the case of Sublett v. City of Tulsa, 405 P.2d 185, 197 (Okla.

  8. Sublett v. City of Tulsa

    1965 OK 78 (Okla. 1965)   Cited 48 times
    In Sublett, 405 P.2d 185, this Court reviewed a taxpayer challenge alleging that the ordinance authorizing a vote on the issuance of bonds did not specify the particular industries that would locate on the planned facilities in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution article 10, section 16, requirement that "[a]ll laws authorizing the borrowing of money... shall specify the purpose for which the money is to be used."

    Proposition III contends acquisition of land and construction of port facilities constitutes appropriation of funds, levying of taxes and loan of credit to private corporations or individuals, to be utilized in contravention of Art. X, Sec. 17. This contention is based upon the holding in Lawrence, etc. v. Schellstede et al., Okla., 348 P.2d 1078, wherein the provision was held to be a limitation adopted for the purpose of preventing investment of public funds in private enterprises. However, in Fischer v. Oklahoma City, 198 Okla. 22, 174 P.2d 244, we held that where land was acquired by eminent domain for airport use, the city properly could lease a part of the airport facilities to private corporations and individuals and such action did not violate Const., Art. X, Sec. 17.

  9. Eye Clinic, P.C. v. Jackson-Madison Hosp

    986 S.W.2d 565 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 12 times

    Oklahoma courts have held that § 15 does not apply to municipalities since that provision is limited to the state. See Fretz v. City of Edmund, 168 P. 800, 804 (Okl. 1916); Lawrence v. Schellstede, 348 P.2d 1078, 1081 (Okl. 1960). In Andres v. First Arkansas Dev. Fin. Corp., 324 S.W.2d 97 (Ark. 1959), the Arkansas legislature passed a statute creating corporations to provide financial assistance to industrial development.

  10. Rural Water District No. 3, Pushmataha County v. Antlers Public Works Authority

    866 P.2d 458 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    The constitutional provision at issue here was intended to prevent public investment in private enterprises. Lawrence v. Schellstede, 348 P.2d 1078, 1082 (Okla. 1960); see Willow Wind, Inc. v. City of Midwest City, 790 P.2d 1067, 1070 (Okla. 1989).