Legal Opinion
Muskogee Urban Renewal Authority v. Excise Board of Muskogee County
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided June 27, 1995No. 74424PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON REHEARING
2Per curiam
The first impression issue presented in this appeal is whether tax increment financing of urban renewal costs violates the state constitution. We hold that the statutory scheme for financing and paying the costs of urban renewal established in 11 O.S.Supp.1983, § 38-115 and § 38-120, et seq., does not in and of itself contravene the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution. However, such tax increment financing is subject to the provisions of Okla. Const., art. 10, § 26, and any apportionments from ad valorem tax levies may not be used to pay for long-term debts which have…
3Cases cited10 opinions
- Richards v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Draper v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
- Reherman v. Oklahoma Water Resources BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- City of Midwest City v. HarrisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
- City of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by9 opinions
- Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority v. Medical Technology & Research AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
- Tulsa Industrial Authority v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011
- Dobson Telephone Co. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Corp. CommissionCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2016
- DOBSON TELEPHONE CO. v. STATE ex rel. OKLA. CORPORATION COMM.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2016
- State ex rel. County Commission of Boone County v. CookeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.