Starner v. Oklahoma City

5 Citing cases

  1. Lepak v. McClain

    1992 OK 166 (Okla. 1992)   Cited 9 times

    "This court will not pass upon the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, nor any of its provisions, until there is presented a proper case in which it is made to appear that the person complaining by reason thereof has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or who is about to be subjected to some of its burdens or penalties. Starner v. Oklahoma City, 205 Okla. 170, 236 P.2d 479." 470 P.2d at 1014.

  2. Buxton v. Wilson

    654 P.2d 1048 (Okla. 1982)   Cited 2 times

    "2. If the child be illegitimate, by the mother."Dablemont v. State Dept. of Public Safety, Okla., 543 P.2d 563 (1975), Bradbury v. Oklahoma State Board of Chiropody, Okla., 490 P.2d 246 (1971); In re Mayes-Rogers Counties Conservancy Dist. Formation, Okla., 386 P.2d 150 (1963); Starner v. Oklahoma City, 205 Okla. 170, 236 P.2d 479 (1951). We find 58 O.S. 1971 § 769[ 58-769] to be determinative of the issue as to the surviving parent's prior right to be appointed guardian of the estates of his or her minor children.

  3. Smith v. Bovaird Supply Co.

    1980 OK 129 (Okla. 1980)   Cited 4 times
    In Bovaird, the Supreme Court held it was error for the trial court to permanently enjoin landlocked property owners from pursuing in the future an easement pursuant to 27 O.S. 2001 § 6[ 27-6] but finding it unnecessary to determine "what rights are afforded to a `landlocked' owner."

    See Footnote 2 ante.Starner v. Oklahoma City, 205 Okla. 170, 236 P.2d 479 (1951). Injunctions should not be granted, or should be granted only sparingly, against the enforcement of an allegedly invalid ordinance, resting on the state authority, when only the grounds of unconstitutionality is alleged. It is necessary that further circumstances be shown which bring the case within some clear grounds of equity before granting such relief. The existence of an adequate remedy at law may likewise preclude issuance of an injunction.

  4. Rath v. Maness ex rel. Cochran

    1970 OK 111 (Okla. 1970)   Cited 13 times

    He had not been cited for contempt for failure to make the payments and he was not about to be denied some right or privilege to which he was lawfully entitled. This court will not pass upon the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, nor of any of its provisions, until there is presented a proper case in which it is made to appear that the person complaining by reason thereof has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he was lawfully entitled or who is about to be subjected to some of its burdens or penalties. Starner v. Oklahoma City, 205 Okla. 170, 236 P.2d 479. See also Thrasher v. Board of Governors, Okla., 359 P.2d 717, and Semke v. State ex rel. Okla. Motor Vehicle Com'n, Okla., 465 P.2d 441, 446.

  5. Garrett v. Watson

    1959 OK 144 (Okla. 1959)   Cited 7 times
    In Garrett v. Watson, Okla., 342 P.2d 560, we considered this method of appeal. It was there argued the direction to prepare the record was not timely given. The effect of that opinion is to hold that if notice of intention to appeal is given within ten days as provided by 12 O.S. 1961 § 954[ 12-954], and the petition in error is filed within 90 days as provided by 12 O.S. 1961 § 956.2[ 12-956.2] the appeal is perfected.

    These questions would not be present if the party attacking the constitutionality of the law were relegated to his action for injunctive relief. See Starner v. Oklahoma City, 205 Okla. 170, 236 P.2d 479, for a definite rule in this regard. In the instant case the alleged appeal was in fact filed as a petition for injunctive relief; therefore, the trial court was in error in dismissing same, even though it also purported to be an appeal.