Hargrave v. Tulsa Board of Adjustment
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
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
- Manley v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
- Ballman v. DuffecyIndiana Supreme Court · 1952
- Great Plains Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. DabneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Vinson v. MedleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
- Edmondson v. Siegfried Insurance Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1978
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- OSAGE NATION v. BD. OF COMMISSIONERS OF OSAGE COUNTY and OSAGE NATION v. OSAGE COUNTY BD. OF ADJUSTMENTSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2017
- Mustang Run Wind Project, LLC v. Osage County Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
- Harvey v. Auto Plus of WoodwardCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2012
- MUSTANG RUN WIND PROJECT, LLC v. OSAGE COUNTY BD. OF ADJUSTMENTSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
- Hedrick v. Commissioner of the Department of Public SafetySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.