Legal Opinion

Hargrave v. Tulsa Board of Adjustment

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 24, 2002No. 97,474PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BOUDREAU, Justice:

T1 We retained this appeal to decide whether the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal from a decision of a municipal board of adjustment to the district court, set forth in 11 0.8.2001 § 44-110, are mandatory. We hold the statutory requirements are mandatory.

I

FACTS

12 On June 26, 2001, the Tulsa Board of Adjustment (Board) conducted a hearing on Carter R. Hargrave's (Hargrave) request for a special zoning exception. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board denied Hargrave's request. On July 6, 2001, within ten days of the Board's denial, Hargrave filed a Notice…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Manley v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
  2. Ballman v. DuffecyIndiana Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Great Plains Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. DabneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
  4. Vinson v. MedleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
  5. Edmondson v. Siegfried Insurance Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1978

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. OSAGE NATION v. BD. OF COMMISSIONERS OF OSAGE COUNTY and OSAGE NATION v. OSAGE COUNTY BD. OF ADJUSTMENTSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2017
  2. Mustang Run Wind Project, LLC v. Osage County Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
  3. Harvey v. Auto Plus of WoodwardCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2012
  4. MUSTANG RUN WIND PROJECT, LLC v. OSAGE COUNTY BD. OF ADJUSTMENTSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
  5. Hedrick v. Commissioner of the Department of Public SafetySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2013

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API