FORD v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

FORD v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
1961 OK 183
363 P.2d 859
Case Number: 39425
Decided: 07/05/1961
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

HENRY FORD, COUNTY ASSESSOR OF OKLAHOMA 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

¶0 1. 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 valuations 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.'
2. The fact that the order, above referred to, had the effect of requiring an increase of valuations in the majority, but not all, of this State's counties, did not convert it from a tax equalization measure to a scheme to increase taxes in the counties affected, absent a showing that valuations in the counties not affected did not conform to the standard followed in the order.
3. The fact that the Board, in arriving at its decision reflected in said order, considered a 'ratio study', which included more rural property in two of a particular county's geographical ranges, than in other parts of said county, did not demonstrate that the Board erred, in view of the evidence.
4. In view of the demonstration that taxpayers are not relegated to their county equalization boards for relief against erroneous orders of the State Board of Equalization, the claim, in the present case, that the latter Board's order was entered too late to afford them such relief, presented no cause for reversal.
5. The Amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution's Art. X, sec. 8, in 1958, amended existing statutes governing the valuation of property for ad valorem taxes.

Proceedings before the State Board of Equalization, in which, upon consideration of a complaint therein filed by the Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma 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.

James W. Bill Berry, County Atty., by W.C. Kessler, Asst. County Atty., Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., of Oklahoma, 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.

Frank Carter, Enid, of counsel: Otjen & Carter, Enid, for Oklahoma Farm Bureau, Amicus Curiae.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is another appeal from the same order of the State Board of Equalization appealed from in Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County v. State Board of Equalization, Okl., 363 P.2d 242.

¶2 As the parties herein have caused the briefs filed by the party-litigants in that case to be considered as their briefs in this case - thus submitting the same issues here, as there - our opinion there is decisive here. Accordingly, on the basis of the principles there announced and applied, plaintiff in error has shown no valid ground for reversing the order appealed from; and it is again affirmed.

¶3 As in the cited case, it is further ordered that the time for filing a petition for rehearing herein be limited to ten (10) days from the date this opinion is filed.

¶4 WILLIAMS, C.J., and WELCH, DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.

¶5 IRWIN, J., concurs specially.

¶6 JACKSON, J., dissents.

IRWIN, Justice (concurring specially).

¶1 I concur specially for the reasons set forth in Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County v. State Board of Equalization, Okl., 363 P.2d 242.