Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Lawton v. Akers

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 16, 1958No. 37721Published

1Dissent

HALLEY, Justice.

I dissent in this case because I think the action is premature. The assessing ordinance has not been passed. There is no question but that there is property in this paving district that will be greatly benefited by the proposed paving district. It is difficult for me to see that an improved street would not benefit all the property in the district, at least to a certain extent. It is to be presumed that the assessing authority would do their job properly. Under Section 108, 11 0.S.1951, the plaintiffs would have fifteen days after the publication of the ordinance levying…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  2. Riedt v. City of McAlesterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API