¶1 In this case it appears that on June 22, 1951, plaintiff, Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, brought an action in condemnation in the district court of Lincoln county, against William B. Dye and Lillian B. Dye to acquire a fee-simple title to surface rights to a tract of land consisting of 0.27 acres out of a two-acre tract owned by defendants located in the southeast corner of the N.W. 1/4 of the S

¶1 Appellant, Dyco Petroleum Corporation, held the right to go on to the surface of a 160 acre tract of land owned by appellees Orlin and Janet Smith for the purpose of conducting oil and gas drilling operations as the appointed operator under a forced pooling order entered by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

¶2 In May 1985 appellant filed a petition in the District Court of Washita

¶1 This is a proceeding in condemnation under the power of eminent domain brought by Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, as plaintiff, against Roy E. Daniel and Jessie Mae Daniel, husband and wife, and The Bank of Tuttle, as defendants. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

¶2 On July 25, 1962, the plaintiff filed its petition in the District Court of McClain Cou

¶1 Mark and Rachel Hall appeal three rulings of the district court, a January 3, 2011 order granting their motion for attorney fees, a January 31, 2011 order denying their motion for treble damages and a July 6, 2011 order denying their motion for additional attorney fees. We dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the orders appealed lack the finality required for appellat

¶1 Appellant (Department) seeks review of a judgment for Appellees (Landowners) in this action for injury to real property. It further seeks review of the trial court's order assessing attorney fees. We affirm.

¶2 Landowners filed their petition on July 1, 1988. They claimed Department, as part of a road improvement project in 1983, replaced a culvert which had been draining their land

¶1 Edward M. and Anna F. Ransom appeal from the Trial Court's denial of their Objection to Amended Petition for Condemnation. Based on our review of the record on appeal and applicable law, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The Klintworths and the Joneses filed their petition to condemn an access easement pursuant to 27 O.S.2001 § 6, alleging the easement was necessary to provide acces

¶1 The Oklahoma Department of Transportation ("ODOT") brings this appeal from the District Court's order denying exceptions and affirming the appraisal report of commissioners appointed by the Court pursuant to the State's eminent domain procedures. This Court has jurisdiction to review only a final order or judgment which affects substantial rights of the parties. Having reviewed the Appellate b

¶1 Appellants, (Landowners) in this condemnation action, appeal from an order of the trial court overruling their exceptions to the report of the commissioners appointed to appraise their land condemned by Appellee Electric Cooperative for an easement to construct power lines.

¶2 Landowners based their objections on the right of Appellee to exercise the powers of eminent domain. This qu

¶1 Jim C. Graham instituted this action January 9, 1957, against the City of Duncan to collect damages for the alleged destruction of a broomcorn crop of the value of $5,274.25. The parties will be referred to as Graham and City.

¶2 In his petition Graham alleged he had leased land in Stephens County, Oklahoma, from his father, the then owner of the land, for the year 1956 and had plant

¶1 David M. Hanke (decedent) died intestate on April 4, 2002 in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. He was the record owner of certain real property in the City of Stigler, Oklahoma, in Haskell County. On June 6, 2002, Defendant/Appellee Latresia Crumley (Crumley), one of decedent's daughters, filed a "Petition for Letters of Administration, Appointment of Personal Representative and Determination of Heir

Appellee Northeast Harris County MUD 1 filed an eminent domain suit against appellants Frank and Shelley Thornton. The Thorntons brought counterclaims for inverse condemnation, nuisance, trespass, and negligent trespass. MUD filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that there was no legislative waiver of its governmental immunity and that the Thorntons’ counterclaims did not give rise to a cons

This case arises out of the condemnation of appellant Farabi, Inc.’s property by appellee Harris County. Farabi appeals the trial court’s grant of the County’s motion for partial summary judgment. Farabi argues that the County failed to meet its burden to prove as a matter of law it was entitled to summary judgment because it did not establish that the condemnation of all of Farabi’s prope

In this statutory fraud action involving the “as is” sale of commercial real property,
Harstan, Ltd. and TBI, Inc., (collectively, “Harstan”) appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of
Si Kyu Kim and Sarah Kyung-Al Kim (collectively, “the Kims”). In three issues, Harstan
argues that the “as is” nature of the sale precludes the Kims from recovering on their claim an

Olive Lane Industrial Park ("Olive Lane") owned real property that was taken by eminent domain. Within four years after the eminent domain order, Olive Lane acquired
2
another parcel of property.1 About five and one-half years after the eminent domain order, for purposes of calculating property taxes on its new property, Olive Lane filed a request with the San Diego County tax assessor (Co

Dale Piercy appeals the district court’s dismissal of his amended action for declaratory relief, which challenged the validity of a herd district ordinance enacted in 1982 by the Canyon County Commissioners. The district court dismissed Piercy’s claim on the basis that it was barred by a seven-year statute of limitations or, in the alternative, a four-year statute of limitations. Piercy challe

This case comes to the Court as a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, the Honorable Edward J. Lodge, U.S. District Judge, presiding. Karen White and her development company, Elkhorn, LLC, seek to recover $166,496 paid to Valley County for “capital investments for roads in the vicinity of [their] White Cloud development.” Pursuant to I.A.R. 12.3(c), this C

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040,1 a judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing the judgment, including statutory attorney fees ―otherwise provided by law.‖ A motion to claim enforcement costs must, however, be made ―before the judgment is satisfied in full.‖ (§ 685.080, subd. (a).)
In the present case, plaintiff Fessha Taye, conserva

Leonard Avila, a police officer, periodically worked
through his lunch break but did not claim overtime.
According to his commanding officer, Avila was a model
officer. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD),
however, deemed Avila insubordinate for not claiming
overtime and fired him.
AVILA V. LAPD 5
Not coincidentally, that termination occurred only after
Avila h

¶1 In 1992, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
condemned property belonging to Walker Development
Partnership. After nearly twenty years of litigation between UDOT
and Walker, UDOT moved to exclude evidence that it took
property not identified in the 1992 Condemnation Resolution. The
district court granted UDOT’s motion to exclude. We affirm.
UDOT v. Walker Dev

¶1 This case presents the question whether the Utah Depart-ment of Transportation (UDOT) has the authority to use the pow-er of eminent domain to condemn private property in excess of that needed for a transportation project. The condemnation at is-sue involved a fifteen-acre parcel owned by Michael Carlson. UDOT condemned the whole parcel despite the fact that it needed only 1.2 acres for its pl

Our commitment as Americans to the principles of liberty, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws is made live by our adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America. Historical challenges to these principles ultimately culminated in the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment nearly one-and-a-half centuries ago. This Amendment extends the guarantees of due process and equa

State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Sunny Investment Properties, LLC, Whiteco Industries, Inc., Union Bank f/k/a Rose Rock Bank, and Tulsa County Treasurer

Issue # 1.
Issue: CONDEMNATION (CONDEMN)
Filed by: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Filed Date: 07/08/2008
Party Name: Disposition Information:

Defendant: SUNNY INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC

Lamar Central Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, Tulsa Development Authority, C.H. Carter and CH Carter Family Revocable Trust

Issue # 1.
Issue: INVERSE CONDEMNATION (CONDEMN)
Filed by: LAMAR CENTRAL OUTDOOR INC
Filed Date: 03/19/2007
Party Name: Disposition Information:

Defendant: CITY OF TULSA
Disposed: FINAL ORDER, 06/17/2009. Other.

Defendant

A jury convicted defendant Donald Ray Debose of the first degree murder and second degree robbery of, and arson causing great bodily injury to, Dannie Kim (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 211, 212.5, 451, subd. (a)),1 and it found true special circumstance allegations that Kim‟s murder took place during the commission of arson and robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). The jury convicted defend

Appellant, Gene Smirl, doing business as “Gene’s Pearland Exxon” and “Pearland Motor Company” (“Smirl”), challenges the trial court’s rendition of

2

summary judgment in favor of appellee, RMJ Miller Real Estate Holdings, Ltd. (“RMJ”),1 in Smirl’s suit against RMJ to recover a portion of condemnation proceeds for the value of his lost leasehold interest in the su