BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS v. ST. BD. OF EQUALIZATION

BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS v. ST. BD. OF EQUALIZATION
1961 OK 156
363 P.2d 259
Case Number: 39423
Decided: 06/13/1961
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

Appeal from an order of the State Equalization Board.

Syllabus by the Court

¶0 Where the State Board of Equalization determines, in proper proceedings before it, that rural property, as a class, or generally, is valuated lower, in ratio to its fair cash value, than urban property, the fact that the Board's order requires such valuation to be increased at a greater rate than the rate of increase ordered for urban property, does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the order violates the Oklahoma Constitution's Article X, section 5, requiring taxes to be 'uniform upon the same class of subjects.'

Proceedings before the State Board of Equalization, in which, upon consideration of a complaint therein filed by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Oklahoma, among others, said Board refused to modify or vacate its previous order directing increases in property valuations in the counties involved; and said Commissioners Board appeals. Affirmed.

Robert L. Gregory, County Atty., Garfield County, Enid, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Fred Hansen, First Asst. Atty. Gen., L.G. Hyden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albert D. Lynn, Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Ed Armstrong, Asst. Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

Otjen & Carter, by Frank Carter, Enid, for Oklahoma Farm Bureau, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Plaintiff in error has lodged the present appeal from the same order of the State Board of Equalization appealed from in other cases this day decided, including cause No. 39321, Board of County Com'rs of Canadian County v. State Board of Equalization, Okl.,

¶2 Complaint is herein made of said order's requirement that valuations in Garfield County be increased the same respective percentages as it is shown, in the cited case, to require in Canadian County.

¶3 There is no material difference between the arguments advanced under plaintiff in error's two propositions for reversal here, and those advanced under the first two propositions the appellant urged for reversal in that case, except here plaintiff in error adds to its second proposition, the assertion that the order "* * * Will Deprive a Taxpayer of his Property Without Due Process of Law." However, plaintiff in error's brief sets forth no argument nor authority to support said assertion. It therefore presents no ground for reversal. Thrasher v. Board of Governors, Okl.,

¶4 Affirmed.

¶5 The period for filing a petition for rehearing herein is also reduced to 10 days, as ordered in the cited case.

¶6 WILLIAMS, C.J., BLACKBIRD, V.C.J., and WELCH, DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.

¶7 IRWIN, J., concurs specially.

¶8 JACKSON, J., dissents.

IRWIN, Justice (concurring specially).

I concur specially for the reasons set forth in Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County, Oklahoma, v. State Board of Equalization, Okl.,