Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Oklahoma Water Resources Bd. v. Texas County Irrigation and Water Resources Assn.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 26, 1984No. 56355Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ROBINSON, S.J.,

concurring in part, dissenting in part:

I concur with Part I and II of the majority opinion but must respectfully dissent from Part III of said opinion. I dissent from the concurring opinion. I do not dissent, however, to those portions of the majority opinion and the concurring opinion dealing with the “automatic” revalidation of a temporary permit under the Water Resources Board’s (Board) rule 840.4.

I recognize that the question and issue of waste has never been raised or presented by any party for review. All of Appellants’ assignments of error in both the petition in error…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sporhase v. Nebraska Ex Rel. DouglasSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Texas County Irrigation & Water Resources Ass'n v. Cities Service Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
  3. Lowrey v. HodgesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1976
  4. Hodges v. Oklahoma Water Resources BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API