Rural Water Sewer Solid Waste v. City of Guthrie

10 Citing cases

  1. Oliver v. Hofmeister

    2016 OK 15 (Okla. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Finding no "constitutional significance" in the fact that there are "more students attending sectarian private schools than non-sectarian" private schools

    ¶ 5 Plaintiffs carry a very heavy burden of proof to establish their contention that the Act violates Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. "A legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the Constitution." Rural Water Sewer and Solid Waste Management v. City of Guthrie, et al., 2010 OK 51, ¶ 15, 253 P.3d 38, 44 ; citing Kimery v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Okla., 1980 OK 187, ¶ 6, 622 P.2d 1066, 1069. We are guided by well-established principles of statutory construction and "[e]very presumption is to be indulged in favor of constitutionality of a statute."

  2. Lee v. Bueno

    2016 OK 97 (Okla. 2016)   Cited 44 times
    Discussing the impact of § 3009.1 on Okla. Stat. tit 23, § 61

    A legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the Constitution. Rural Water Sewer and Solid Waste Mgmt. v. City of Guthrie , 2010 OK 51, ¶ 15, 253 P.3d 38 ; Kimery v. Public Serv. Co. of Oklahoma , 1980 OK 187, ¶ 6, 622 P.2d 1066 ; Matter of Daniel, Deborah and Leslie H. , 1979 OK 33, ¶ 10, 591 P.2d 1175. If two possible interpretations of a statute are possible, only one of which would render it unconstitutional, a court is bound to give the statute an interpretation which will render it constitutional, unless constitutional infirmity is shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

  3. Deer Creek Water Corp. v. City of Oklahoma City

    82 F.4th 972 (10th Cir. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    In each, the water associations had not even tried to provide water service; whereas here, Deer Creek has presented a plan to provide service within 90 days and seeks to implement it. See City of Wilson, 243 F.3d at 1272 (affirming denial of § 1926(b) protection as to one property because water district "had made no effort to extend service to the property[ ] and had not commissioned an engineering study to determine if service was feasible"); Santa La Hill, Inc. v. Koch Dev. Corp., No. 3:07-cv-00100, 2008 WL 140808, at *5 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 11, 2008) (unpublished) (faulting water district for "not hav[ing] a plan in place to meet the growing needs" of development); Rural Water Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt., Dist. No. 1 v. City of Guthrie, 253 P.3d 38, 49 (Okla. 2010) (noting in passing that "nothing prevents a municipality from extending water service within [a rural] district if the district has made no attempt to provide water to its customer after a request for service is made"); In re Detachment of Territory from Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 8, 210 S.W.3d 246, 250-51 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (finding water district did not make service available because despite master plan that would have provided service, water district gave no timeline and had not obtained required state approvals or begun proposed improvements).

  4. Rural Water Dist. No. 5 Wagoner Cnty. v. City of Coweta

    202 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (N.D. Okla. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has determined that "the right of an indebted association to supply water service within its service area under section 1926(b) coexists with a municipality's right to provide fire protection." Rural Water Sewer and Solid Waste Mgmt., Dist. No. 1, Logan Cnty., Okla. v. City of Guthrie , 2010 OK 51, ¶ 26, 253 P.3d 38, 49. Federal and Oklahoma law do not require rural water districts to provide fire protection to their customers.

  5. Hill v. Am. Med. Response

    2018 OK 57 (Okla. 2018)   Cited 19 times
    In Hill v. American Medical Response, 2018 OK 57, ¶ 1, 423 P.3d 1119, 1123, this court upheld the mandatory use of guidelines established by the American Medical Association for assessing impairment for non-scheduled members set forth in 85A O.S.Supp.2013, § 45, referencing the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Sixth Ed.

    A legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and will be upheld by this Court unless it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the Constitution. Lee , 2016 OK 97 at ¶ 7, 381 P.3d 736 ; Rural Water Sewer and Solid Waste Mgmt. v. City of Guthrie , 2010 OK 51, ¶ 15, 253 P.3d 38 ; Kimery v. Public Serv. Co. of Okla. , 1980 OK 187, ¶ 6, 622 P.2d 1066. ¶ 9 We have previously explained that this Court's examination of a statute's constitutional validity does not extend to policy:

  6. Dani v. Miller

    2016 OK 35 (Okla. 2016)   Cited 25 times

    A legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the Constitution. Rural Water Sewer and Solid Waste Mgmt. v. City of Guthrie, 2010 OK 51, ¶ 15, 253 P.3d 38 ; EOG Resources Marketing, Inc. v. Okla. State Bd. of Equalization, 2008 OK 95, ¶ 13, 196 P.3d 511 ; Mehdipour v. State ex rel. Dep't of Corr., 2004 OK 19, ¶ 22, 90 P.3d 546. Every presumption is to be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of a statute.

  7. Estate of Bell–Levine v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n

    293 P.3d 964 (Okla. 2012)   Cited 43 times

    When feasible, this Court construes statutes in a manner “so as to uphold their constitutionality.” Rural Water Sewer and Solid Waste Mgmt., Dist. No. 1, Logan Cnty., Okla. v. City of Guthrie, 2010 OK 51, ¶ 15, 253 P.3d 38, 45 (internal citation omitted). ¶ 10 We have previously applied statutory limitation periods to preclude claims raised by the State of Oklahoma. For example, in State of Oklahoma ex rel. Central State Griffin Memorial Hospital v. Reed, 1972 OK 14, 493 P.2d 815, we determined a state claim for medical expenses incurred by a decedent's wife was barred from collection under the probate code.

  8. Rural Water Sewer Solid Waste v. City of Guthrie

    654 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 2011)   Cited 85 times
    Finding that a customer-by-customer basis was appropriate for determining whether service was made available

    The Oklahoma Supreme Court accepted our certification of this question, see Rural Water Sewer Solid Waste Mgmt, Dist. No. 1 v. City of Guthrie, 344 Fed.Appx. 462 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished), and concluded that a rural water district could agree to § 1926(b)'s protection without violating the Oklahoma Constitution. See Rural Water Sewer Solid Waste Mgmt, Dist. No. 1 v. City of Guthrie, 253 P.3d 38, 41 (Okla. 2010). In reaching that conclusion, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined the following: The Oklahoma legislature enacted statutes that permit the creation of rural water districts with designated service areas, but the legislature has not provided these districts with an exclusive franchise to provide water service in those areas.

  9. Rural Water, Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist. No. 1, Logan Cnty. v. City of Guthrie

    No. CIV-05-786-R (W.D. Okla. Oct. 22, 2013)

    See also 82 O.S. § 1324.2(6); Rural Water Sewer & Solid Waste Mgmt., Dist. No. 1 v. City of Guthrie, 253 P.3d 38, 46 (Okla. 2010) ("the plain language of the Act clearly creates a limited and restricted franchise to serve the defined area.") (footnote omitted). Defendants' sixth and seventh motions in limine are opposite sides of the same coin.

  10. Rural Water Dist. No. 5 Wagoner Cnty. v. City of Coweta

    949 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (N.D. Okla. 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Finding genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment

    The provisions of the Oklahoma statutes indicate that the boundaries of a rural water district are determined at the time the board of county commissioners “declare[s] the land described in the petition or any part thereof to be incorporated as a district.” See Okla. Stat. tit. 82, § 1324.6; see also Rural Water Sewer and Solid Waste Mgmt., Distr. No. 1, Logan County, Oklahoma v. City of Guthrie, 253 P.3d 38, 45–46 (Okla.2010) (citations omitted) (“Creating a district in essence requires the County Commissioners to draw boundaries by defining the ‘area which should be included in the district.’ The County Commissioners must ‘immediately declare the land described in the petition or any part thereof to be incorporated as a district’ under the name of the purpose for which it is created.