Legal Opinion
Liddell v. Heavner
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 29, 2008No. 102,732PublishedCited by 56 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtOpala, J.
4 1 The principal and dispositive issue presented on certiorari is whether the terms of 68 0.8. Supp.2004 § 2817(I) 2 violate the fair cash value standard of Article X, § 8(A)(2) of the Oklahoma Constitution. We answer in the affirmative.3
I
THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION
T2 In May 2004 Harold Liddell ("Liddell" or "Plaintiff") filed a complaint in the Cleveland County Board of Equalization ("Board"), alleging that Denise Heavner, the Cleveland County Assessor ("Assessor"), had grossly and systematically undervalued real property belonging to certain Cleveland County land developers in violation of…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- United States v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Norton v. Shelby CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Carmichael v. BellerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
- Kluver v. Weatherford Hospital AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Spirgis v. Circle K Stores, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 52 v. HOFMEISTERSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2020
- EOG Resources Marketing, Inc. v. Oklahoma State Board of EqualizationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
- HILL v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSESupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2018
- White v. HENG LY LIMSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2009
- STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION v. LAMAR ADVERTISING OF OKLAHOMA, INC.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2014
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.