Legal Opinion
Heldermon v. Wright
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 21, 2006No. 100,709PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
I. ISSUES
T1 The dispositive issue in this case is whether under title 82, section 105.5, the plaintiffs should have given the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) notice in the district court of this suit. We find that title 82, section 105.5 of the Oklahoma Statutes requires the OWRB be given notice and remand with directions to proceed accordingly.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
T2 The defendant, Danny Wright, owns seventy-two acres of land in Caddo County. Wright began building a dam on an unnamed stream on this seventy-two acres without first applying to the OWRB for a water…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Brown v. FordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. GrovesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Jacobs Ranch, L.L.C. v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- LEE v. BUENOSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
- AMERICAN BIOMEDICAL GROUP, INC. v. TECHTROL, INC.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
- DANI v. MILLERSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
- Curry v. StreaterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2009
- Tyler v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.