Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

DuLaney v. Oklahoma State Department of Health

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 21, 1993No. 70498, 70524Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LAVENDER, V.C.J.,

concurring in part, dissenting in part:

While I concur the mineral interest owners have a property interest which entitles them to due process I dissent from that part of the majority opinion which holds adjacent landowners have a constitutionally protected right based on the due process clauses of OKLA. CONST, art. 2, § 7 and U.S. CONST, amend. XIV to notice and an opportunity for ■ a hearing before a landfill permit is granted to their neighbor and to the overruling of Stewart v. Rood, 796 P.2d 321 (Okla.1990) and Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 810 P.2d 1270…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. CampSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Knox v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  4. O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing CenterSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Bam Historic District Association v. Edward I. Koch, Mayor of the City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983

6 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