TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Oklahoma City v. Haskell, Governor

City of Okla. City v. Haskell, 1910 OK 318, 112 P. 992
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 16, 1910
Docket
No. 1545
Judges
Dhnn
Citations
112 P. 9921910 OK 31827 Okla. 4951910 Okla. LEXIS 245
Disposition
Petition dismissed.
Syllabus
MANDAMUS — Executive Functions of Governor. The courts of the state are without jurisdiction to control the Governor by mandamus in the exercise of his executive functions. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Original Action for Writ of Mandamus. Mandamus by Oklahoma City against C. N. Haskell, Governor.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dhnn

DHNN, C. J.

This is an original action in the Supreme Court' brought by the city of Oklahoma City in which a writ of mandamus is sought against the defendant, Charles N. Haskell, as Governor of the state of Oklahoma, requiring him as such official to appoint a commission to appraise the value of a strip of land which the board of park commissioners of the city of Oklahoma City desire to appropriate across certain public lands owned by the state for the location of a boulevard of the city. The proceeding is being taken, under the provisions of the chapter on eminent *496 domain (ch. 37, p. 804, Comp. Laws of Okla. 1909) which provide for the condemnation for certain purposes, of lands set apart for the use and benefit of the state for public schools, public buildings, and educational institutions, and establishes .a procedure therefor, making it the duty of the Governor to appoint three disinterested persons to appraise the value of the ground taken and the damage done the remaining part. On the Governor’s refusal to appoint the board of appraisers provided for, this action was brought to secure a writ of mandamus to compel him to do so. This Court-is without jurisdiction, for the reason that the courts of the state are without jurisdiction to control the Governor by mandamus in the exercise of his executive functions. This question was gone into, passed on, and determined in the case of State of Oklahoma ex rel. Attorney General v. A. H. Huston (infra), an opinion of tins court recently delivered, and it would be of no practical value to further discuss or reiterate the reasoning of that case. The petition is,, accordingly, dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 11933: 11972: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Russell Petroleum Co. v. Walker1933 OK 75, 19 P.2d 582 · Dissent
  2. Hall v. Tirey1972 OK 118, 501 P.2d 496
  3. State ex rel. Dunlop, State Treas. v. Cruce1912 OK 227, 122 P. 237

Most recent

  1. Hall v. Tirey1972 OK 118, 501 P.2d 496
  2. Russell Petroleum Co. v. Walker1933 OK 75, 19 P.2d 582 · Dissent
  3. State ex rel. Dunlop, State Treas. v. Cruce1912 OK 227, 122 P. 237

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list