Williams Natural Gas Company v. Perkins

28 Citing cases

  1. Chesapeake v. Loomis

    164 P.3d 254 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times
    Approving use of Davis factors despite argument that they were irrelevant as a result of the decision in Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Perkins, 1997 OK 72, 952 P.2d 483, concerning partial takings

    See Davis Oil Co. v. Cloud, 1986 OK 73, ¶ 22, 766 P.2d 1347, 1352. ¶ 18 However, Chesapeake suggests these factors are no longer relevant to surface damages cases because of the decision in Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Perkins, 1997 OK 72, 952 P.2d 483. In Williams, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held unconstitutional the legislature's designation, in 66 O.S.1991 § 53 (D), of "before-and-after" valuation as the exclusive method to determine just compensation in partial takings cases.

  2. City of Oklahoma City v. Hamilton

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

    SeeWilliamsNat. Gas Co. v. Perkins, 1997 OK 72, ¶ 4, 952 P.2d 483, 487. City characterizes this case as a "total taking," a label it uses to refer to condemnation of the warehouse and the entire parcel of land where the warehouse sat, to differentiate this case from one involving only a "partial taking." The latter phrase has been used in cases after the amendment to § 24 to describe taking of a part of the condemnee's property.

  3. In re Amendments to Okla. Unif. Jury Instructions-Civil

    2022 OK 75 (Okla. 2022)

    Comments The Oklahoma Supreme Court decided that this Instruction was "a correct statement of the law" in Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Perkins, 1997 OK 72, ¶ 13, 952 P.2d 483, 488, under Okla. Const. art. 2, § 24, despite conflicting language in 66 O.S. 2021, § 53(D). Instruction No. 31.5

  4. GRP of Texas, Inc. v. Eateries, Inc.

    2001 OK 53 (Okla. 2001)   Cited 24 times
    Recognizing that appeal-related attorney fees may be authorized by contract

    Id. 737 P.2d at 942. In Williams Natural Gas Company v. Perkins, 1997 OK 72, 952 P.2d 483, we allowed a party appeal-related attorney's fees conditional upon prevailing upon success upon retrial. Id. at ¶ 26, 952 P.2d at 491.

  5. In re Amendments to Okla. Unif. Jury Instructions

    2016 OK 90 (Okla. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, the formula from the last sentence of these paragraphs is not included in the Instruction.The Oklahoma Supreme Court decided that this Instruction was "a correct statement of the law" in Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Perkins, 1997 OK 72, ¶ 13, 952 P.2d 483, 488, under Okla. Const. art. 2, § 24, despite conflicting language in Okla. Stat. tit. 66, § 53(D) (2011).

  6. State v. Moore

    217 P.3d 165 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009)   Cited 4 times

    ¶ 4 After reviewing the relevant case law and statutory authority, we hold ODOT's court reporter fees and copying expenses qualify as costs under § 1203(e)(1). Citing 12 O.S. 1991 § 942 as statutory support, Williams Nat. Gas Co. v. Perkins, 1997 OK 72, 952 P.2d 483, determined a prevailing landowner in a condemnation case should have been awarded its litigation costs. Such "recoverable costs include court fees, expenses for giving notice, witness and subpoena fees, copying costs, transcripts and costs of depositions."

  7. Shawareb v. SSM Health Care of Okla., Inc.

    2020 OK 92 (Okla. 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Discussing the applicability of the abuse of discretion standard to court’s decision on the admissibility of expert testimony in context of summary judgment proceedings

    When looking first to the trial court's judgment and construing it to determine if judicial discretion was actually exercised on the issue we are asked to review, we examine the clear and unambiguous language of the instrument, since such language is controlling.John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc. , 2017 OK 81, ¶ 28, 405 P.3d 681, 690 ; Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Perkins , 1997 OK 72, ¶ 17, 952 P.2d 483, 489 ; Jones v. Stemco Manufacturing Co. Inc. , 1981 OK 10, 624 P.2d 1044, 1046.Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 52 of Okla. Cnty. v. Hofmeister , 2020 OK 56, ¶ 52, & n. 73, 473 P.3d 475, 498.

  8. Inst. for Responsible Alcohol Policy v. State

    2020 OK 5 (Okla. 2020)   Cited 5 times

    This Court has found that "[a]n amendment to a constitutional provision that has been judicially interpreted is presumed to have changed the existing law." Williams Nat. Gas Co. v. Perkins , 1997 OK 72, ¶ 14 n.11, 952 P.2d 483, 489 n.11. ¶17 In contrast, SB 608 states that manufacturers shall sell the top 25 brands to every licensed wholesaler.

  9. John v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc.

    2017 OK 81 (Okla. 2017)   Cited 14 times
    Declaring 12 O.S.Supp.2013 § 19.1 —which required plaintiffs who would "be required to present the testimony of an expert witness to establish breach of the relevant standard of care and that such breach resulted in harm to [them]" to consult with, and to obtain a written opinion from, an expert witness prior to filing their lawsuits—was "an impermissible barrier to court access and an unconstitutional special law"

    Left open, a plaintiff is required to postulate, pre-petition, whether section 19.1 applies, and if so, whether the selected expert satisfies the "qualified expert" requirement. It is well-settled that "[t]he qualification of an expert witness is generally within the sound discretion of the trial court...." Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Perkins, 1997 OK 72, ¶ 17, 952 P.2d 483, 489. Like the overly inclusive class in Wall, section 19.1's overly broad application is unworkable.

  10. State v. McCloskey

    2009 OK 90 (Okla. 2009)   Cited 18 times

    A condemnation proceeding is strictly controlled by the constitution and statutes. Williams Natural Gas Co., 1997 OK 72, ¶ 25, 952 P.2d 483; Carter v. City of Oklahoma City, 1993 OK 134, ¶ 12, 862 P.2d 77. See, Curtis v. WFEC Railroad Co., supra, wherein a landowner sued a condemnor for damages to land which occurred while the condemnor was on the property pursuant to an easement it had obtained through condemnation.