Morehead v. Dyer ¶ 3 In 1973, the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the issue of recall elections in Morehead v. Dyer,518 P.2d 1105 (Okla. 1973). An initiative petition was filed with the city clerk and circulated for voter signatures calling for an amendment to the Comanche city charter providing for the recall of a city councilman.

The court has followed Walbaum, supra note 11, on several occasions. See, e.g., Morehead v. Dyer, Okla., 518 P.2d 1105, 1107 (1974); Matter of Initiative Petition, Okla., 718 P.2d 1353, 1354 (1986); In re Initiative Petition No. 344, supra note 9 at 330; cf. In re Initiative Petition No. 342, supra note 9 at 333. I would allow any presubmission challenge based on a petition's failure to conform to some mandatory or sine qua non constitutional or statutory procedural norms — as distinguished from a content-based challenge to the measure itself — if the procedural infirmities are apparent on the face of the petition.

City of Ponca City v. Edwards, see note 33, supra.Moorehead v. Dyer, 518 P.2d 1105, 1107-08 (Okla. 1974).Moore Funeral Homes, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 552 P.2d 702, 704 (Okla.

See Fletcher v. Joseph, 105 Ark. 646; Johnson v. Elder, 92 Ark. 30; Snow v. State, 85 Ark. 203; Van Etten v. Daugherty, 83 Ark. 534. See also Morehead v. Dyer, 134 Ark. 548; Hargis v. Lawrence, 135 Ark. 321; Carter v. Stewart, 149 Ark. 189. Conceding that the church had legal title to the lands in controversy at the time Murph executed his deed to McDonald, and that, as such owner, it had actual possession of subdivision lots 1 and 2, on which the church was built, and constructive possession as the owner of all of lot 1, block 47, town of Smackover, never the less the deed from Murph to McDonald and the actual possession by him thereunder of lots 5 and 6 was an actual invasion and possession adverse to the rights of the church, and carried with it, under the rule stated, constructive possession to lots 3 and 4. Ringo v. Woodruff, 43 Ark. 469; Woolfolk v. Buckner, 60 Ark. 163; Haggart v. Raney, 73 Ark. 344; Hardy v. Investment Guaranty Co., Ltd., 81 Ark. 141.

It possesses and can exercise only those powers expressly granted, or incidental to powers expressly granted, by the state. . . .In Morehead v. Dyer, 1973 OK 121, 518 P.2d 1105, the Court held that a 'statutory' city had no power to hold recall elections because no constitutional or statutory provision authorized such recall elections. . . .The power of non-charter i.e. 'statutory' municipalities are such as are expressly granted or necessarily implied from a statute.

It possesses and can exercise only those powers expressly granted, or incidental to powers expressly granted, by the state.... In Morehead v. Dyer, 1973 OK 121, 518 P.2d 1105, the Court held that a ‘statutory’ city had no power to hold recall elections because no constitutional or statutory provision authorized such recall elections.... The power of non-charter i.e. ‘statutory’ municipalities are such as are expressly granted or necessarily implied from a statute.

1972). The powers of non-charter municipalities are those that are set by the Municipal Code.See 11 O.S. 2001 Supp. 2010, §§ 1-101 — 55-103; Morehead v. Dyer, 518 P.2d 1105, 1107 (Okla. 1973). The Municipal Code provides that a municipality may "enact ordinances, rules and regulations not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of Oklahoma for any purpose mentioned in Title 11 of the Oklahoma Statutes or for carrying out their municipal functions."

Legislative dominion over thescope of general public concern is by the Statedenied to all municipal governments. Morehead v. Dyer, 518 P.2d 1105, 1107 (Okla. 1973) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Charter municipalities are created pursuant to the Oklahoma Constitution, which provides in relevant part:

Id.; Pub. Employees Relations Bd.,845 P.2d at 875. ¶ 5 The powers of a non-charter municipality are those which are set by the Oklahoma Municipal Code. Morehead v. Dyer,518 P.2d 1105, 1107 (Okla. 1973). Such municipalities may enact ordinances to do that which is necessary for the operation of government.

1939); DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIES. INC. V. CITY OF NORMAN, 412 P.2D 953 (OKLA.1966); MOREHEAD V. DYER, 518 P.2D 1105 (OKLA.1973). BY STATUTE, THE GOVERNING BOARD OF EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT IS THE LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION IN EACH DISTRICT. 70 O.S. 5-106 (1991).