Legal Opinion

Sullivant v. City of Oklahoma City

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 20, 1997No. 86486PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMMS, Justice.

¶ 1 A first impression question presented by this cause is whether damage done to an apartment by. police in the execution of a valid search warrant is a “taking” which requires compensation pursuant to Oklahoma Constitution Art. 2 § 24. We hold that such damage does not constitute a compensable taking within the meaning of Art. 2 § 24. We also hold that due to a disputed question of material fact on appellant’s theory of recovery based upon the Governmental Tort Claims Act, this ease must be remanded for further proceedings on that theory. We do not address other theories…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Steele v. City of HoustonTexas Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Ross Ex Rel. Ross v. City of ShawneeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
  3. Holtz v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  4. City of Midwest City v. HarrisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
  5. Customer Co. v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Edwards v. Hallsdale-Powell Utility District Knox CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Brutsche v. City of KentWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Kelley v. Story County SheriffSupreme Court of Iowa · 2000
  4. Brutsche v. City of KentWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Hamen v. Hamlin Cnty.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2021

13 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