STATE v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

STATE v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
1956 OK 45
293 P.2d 583
Case Number: 36620
Decided: 02/14/1956
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, EX REL. JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 16 (LE FLORE) OF LE FLORE COUNTY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 1. In estimating "minimum program income" under terms of

Mandamus proceeding by school districts to compel a reapportionment and further distribution of State Equalization Aid funds to school districts for the years involved. From judgment denying relief sought, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Appeal from judgment of District Court of Oklahoma County; A.P. Van Meter, Judge.

Mastin Geschwind, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., J.H. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.

JACKSON, Justice.

¶1 From an adverse judgment wherein plaintiffs sought a peremptory writ of mandamus against the State Board of Education et al., plaintiffs appeal. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

¶2 This case arises out of the administration of the minimum school program as set forth in

¶3 Plaintiffs are school districts in the county of Le Flore where is located a Federal forest reserve which is contiguous to said districts. In years past these districts have shared in funds returned by the Federal Government to this state under the provisions of an Act of Congress and set forth in 16 U.S.C.A. § 500, and as provided by

¶4 For each of the fiscal years involved, ending June 30, 1952 and June 30, 1953, the defendants included as income an estimate of the amount of these Federal reserve rentals in computing "Minimum Program Income" of the various plaintiff school districts under the terms of

¶5 The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether such revenue, or an estimate thereof, is to be included and charged against the school districts as part of their minimum program income.

¶6 This Court has heretofore considered this question as applied to Federal "`Flood Control Rentals'" in State ex rel. Boards of Education of Independent School Districts No. 1-2 and No. 1-3 of Marshall County v. State Board of Education, Okl., 289 P.2d 653, 655, wherein it was held that, under the provisions of

¶7 It is our opinion that for the same reasons as set forth in said case, it is proper to include in "Minimum Program Income" that revenue which is received from Forest reserve rentals, there being nothing in the applicable statutes to justify a different rule as between the two sources of income.

¶8 Finding no error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

¶9 JOHNSON, C.J., WILLIAMS, V.C.J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, HALLEY and HUNT, JJ., concur.