Parkinson v. Valente

6 Citing cases

  1. Muskogee Fair Haven Manor v. Scott

    1998 OK 26 (Okla. 1998)   Cited 7 times

    Indeed, Oklahoma's statutory procedure for seeking judicial relief from an illegal tax has, since its initial enactment in 1915, been upheld as a plain, speedy, adequate, and exclusive remedy within the legislative power to prescribe. See Black v. Geissler, 58 Okla. 335, 159 P. 1124, 1126 (1916); Atchison, T. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Eldredge, 65 Okla. 317, 166 P. 1085, 1087 (1917); Parkinson v. Valente, 326 P.2d 826, 828 (Okla. 1958); United Airlines, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 1990 OK 29, 789 P.2d 1305, 1308. See S.L. 1915, p. 149, c. 107, sec. 7; Comp.Stat. 1921 § 9971; 68 O.S. 1941 § 15.50[68-15.50]; 68 O.S.Supp. 1965 § 2469[ 68-2469] [ 68-2469]; 68 O.S.Supp. 1988 § 2886[ 68-2886].

  2. WHIG SYNDICATE, INC. v. KEYES

    1992 OK 95 (Okla. 1992)   Cited 14 times

    See Keaton v. Bonaparte, 174 Okla. 316, 50 P.2d 404 (1972), Appeal of Billings Community Elevator, Inc., 510 P.2d 953, 955 (Okla. 1972), (discussing the holdings of four cases); and Oklahoma Nitrogen Co. v. Lucas, 655 P.2d 1031 (Okla. 1982). When a taxpayer is provided a remedy with the Board of Tax Roll Corrections that remedy likewise precludes suit in district court. Parkinson v. Valente, 326 P.2d 826 (Okla. 1958), (suit not authorized when administrative remedy before board of Tax Roll Corrections available). When an administrative remedy is not available suit may be brought in the District Court under 68 O.S. 1981 § 2469[ 68-2469].

  3. Deep Fork Const. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Roll Corr

    391 P.2d 810 (Okla. 1964)   Cited 1 times
    In Deep Fork, plaintiff, the lessee of construction equipment, had received notice by mail of the assessment of taxes against the equipment but had taken no steps to assert its position until more than a year later.

    The record does show that the plaintiff failed to appear before the equalization board although it was in session at least twenty days after notice of the assessment of the omitted property. In the case of Parkinson v. Valente, Okla., 326 P.2d 826, the syllabus reads: "When the statutes provide a remedy against an excessive, erroneous, or improper assessment of property by proceedings before a board of equalization or review, taxpayer must at his peril avail himself of such remedy, and he cannot resort to the courts in the first instance."

  4. Williams v. Cookson

    375 P.2d 911 (Okla. 1962)

    "When property has been voluntarily listed for taxation by the owner, and the valuation placed thereon by him is increased by the assessor, or by the board of equalization without timely notice to him, or without his knowledge or consent, and he is thereby deprived of his right of appeal, his remedy is to pay the taxes under protest and proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 9971, C.O.S. 1921. [68 O.S. 1961, Sec. 15.50]" That holding was followed in Chapman v. Thompson, Okla., 288 P.2d 720, and cited with approval in Parkinson v. Valente, Okla., 326 P.2d 826. Defendant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of the trial court and that no notice to the taxpayer was required because the subdividing of the realty as an addition to the city constituted an original or new assessment rather than a raise in the land's assessed valuation.

  5. Pinnacle Design, Inc. v. Buchanan

    892 P.2d 660 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    Independent School Dist. No. 9 v. Glass, 639 P.2d 1233 (Okla. 1982); see also Parkinson v. Valente, 326 P.2d 826 (Okla. 1958). Thus, under the circumstances presented, PDI was not precluded from proceeding under section 2871.

  6. Opinion

    (Ops.Okla.Atty.Gen. Apr. 12, 1972)

    See Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okl. 95, 278 P. 311; In regard to 68 O.S. 2479 [ 68-2479] (1971), it has been held that the authority to hear and determine errors in the tax rolls is strictly limited to the instances enumerated in the statute. See Bostick v. Board of Commissioners, 19 Okl. 92, 91 P. 1125, Milan v. Smith-Mauer Brothers, 38 Okl. 328, 133 P. 33, State v. Moreland, 152 Okl. 37, 3 P.2d 803. This view is implicit in the following language contained in Parkinson v. Valente, Okl., 326 P.2d 826 (1958): "Our statute establishing the Board of Tax-Rolls Corrections, 68 O.S. 184d [68-184d] (1951), was first enacted in 1949. Prior to the creation of this Board, in 1945, the authority of the Board of County Commissioners to hear and determine error in the tax rolls was increased from the limited authority which had existed for many years to some twelve specific situations authorizing relief by that Board. Session Laws 1945, p. 257, 1. Among the new provisions enacted in 1945 were 68 O.S. 184d [68-184d](9) (1945), which granted authority to the commissioners to correct the tax rolls where an assessment had been increased but notice of the increase had not been given to the taxpayer.