Legal Opinion
Walkingstick v. BD. OF ADJUSTMENT OF TULSA
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided September 17, 1985No. 58134PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HODGES, Justice.
The questions presented on appeal are:(1) Whether the notice of the hearing to permit the drilling of a test hole and a variance of the enclosure requirements was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Board of Adjustment of the City of Tulsa (appellee or Board); and (2) Whether the Board had authority to grant Amoco Production Company (Amoco) a variance to permit the drilling and operation of a test hole to be used for testing downhole oil and gas exploration tools outside of an enclosed structure on the Amoco Production Company Research Center (Research Center) property…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Banks v. City of BethanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1975
- TIB CORP. v. EdmondsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981
- McDonald's v. GrovesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
- Board of Adjustment of Oklahoma City v. PuckettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1960
- Morland Development Co. v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. v. LeavittSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
- Cromwell v. WardCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1995
- Brooks v. BaltzSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
- Triangle Fraternity v. City of Norman, Ex Rel. Norman Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2002
- Brooks v. BaltzSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.