Eminent domain cases are a clash of two bedrock principles of our legal tradition: the sacrosanct right of property owners to own and exercise control over their property and the sovereign state’s power to take private property from an individual for the benefit of the public. The origins of eminent domain date back to the Old Testament of the Bible. King David offered and paid Araunah compensation for his threshing floor to ultimately build an altar to the Lord to stop the plague.¹ In the United States, the concept of eminent domain is recognized by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Takings Clause states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.²

Oklahoma’s Constitution recognized the state’s power of eminent domain in Article II Section 24. Section 24 is similar to the Taking Clause, stating private property shall not be taken without just compensation.³ In the state of Oklahoma, it is well-settled law that the constitutional eminent domain powers and provisions “are not grants of powers, but limitations placed upon the exercise of government of power.”⁴ Alexander Hamilton observed that one of the greatest objectives to the constitutional constraints on the power of eminent domain is to protect “the security of property.”⁵ Likewise, the framers of the Oklahoma Constitution recognized their first duty was to protect life and property.⁶ The state’s power of eminent domain “lies dormant in the State until the Legislature, by specific enactment, designates the occasion, modes and agencies by which it may be placed in operation.”⁷

An eminent domain action is to take private property for public use – it is not a civil action but a special statutory proceeding.⁸ The right of eminent domain is a fundamental power of the sovereign state and strictly controlled by Oklahoma Constitution and statutes.⁹ Our Supreme Court has the longstanding general rule of strict statutory construction of the eminent domain statutes.¹⁰ Specifically, the established general rule is to construe the state constitutional eminent domain provisions strictly in favor of the landowner and against the condemnor.¹¹ The state’s eminent domain statutes must conform to the restrictions placed on them by the Oklahoma constitutional eminent domain provisions.¹²

Eminent domain is limited by Article II Section 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which states, in part, “Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.” The constitution sets forth the definition of just compensation as the following: “Just compensation is the value of the property taken, and in addition, any injury to any part of the property not taken. Any special and direct benefits to the part of the property not taken may be offset only against any injury to the property not taken.”¹³ Eminent domain actions are a special proceeding strictly controlled by the Oklahoma Constitution and statues set forth by the Legislature.¹⁴

Condemning authorities are subject to the eminent domain provisions set forth in Title 27 of the Oklahoma Statutes. The statutes require the condemning authority shall make every reasonable effort to acquire real property by negotiations.¹⁵ Furthermore, the Oklahoma Statutes require an appraisal of the real property be developed prior to negotiations with the landowner.¹⁶ The initial offer must be reasonable and based on an appraisal of the subject property.¹⁷ However, the policy set forth in Okla. Stat. Tit. 27 §13 is not fatal if the condemning entity does not explicitly follow it. In State ex rel. Depart. Of Transp. v. Metcalf,¹⁸ the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that so long as the condemning entity makes a bona fide offer, it has satisfied the only jurisdictional prerequisite to a condemnation action.¹⁹

Okla. Stat. Tit. §53 sets forth the general procedure for a condemning entity to take private property for public use. The general eminent domain procedure outlined in Section 53 is used by counties, municipalities, school districts, boards of education or any other board or official in charge of a cemetery created under Oklahoma law. The specific eminent domain procedure for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and Oklahoma Turnpike Authority are found at Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1203 and Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1708, respectively. In an eminent domain proceeding, there are only three recognized pleadings that may be filed: petition, exception to the commissioners’ report and demand for jury trial.²⁰ Thereafter, the trial court has the discretion whether additional pleadings may be filed.²¹

An eminent domain case starts by the condemning entity filing a petition in the district court where the land is located that it desires to take. The petition requests the district court to appoint three disinterested freeholders to value the property being taken. A legal description is either incorporated into the petition or attached as an exhibit to the petition. Additionally, a resolution or affidavit of necessity is typically included, stating the need for the real property, although it is not required by Oklahoma law. A summons is not required in an eminent domain action. Rather, Oklahoma Statute requires 10 days advance notice to the landowners before the district court will appoint commissioners to appraise the land being acquired.²² Notice may be served in person, by mail and/or publication.²³

At the hearing to appoint commissioners, the district court selects three disinterested freeholders of the county who “shall not be interested in a like question.”²⁴ As used by the statute, the term “freeholder” means an individual who possesses real property in the county of which the eminent domain action is pending. How the district court chooses the commissioners is completely discretionary. When selecting commissioners, the district court is acting in a ministerial role, not a judicial role.²⁵ There is no formal procedure in selecting commissioners in an eminent domain action. If the parties cannot reach an agreement on the commissioners, typically the commissioners are selected one of two ways. The first method is for the district court to solely select the commissioners. The second, and more common method, is for the condemnor to select one commissioner, the landowner to select a second commissioner and the third commissioner is selected by the district court. It is the established practice for the district court to set forth instructions to the commissioners for their assessment of the real property, however, it is not mandatory.

The court-appointed commissioners do not decide whether the taking is proper, rather they are to inspect the property, assess the just compensation due to the landowner and file a report of their findings with the clerk of the district court.²⁶ The report of commissioners is an estimate of just compensation for the condemned property. The report of commissioners is undivided and is an estimate of just compensation for all ownership interests, including those of a tenant, mortgagee or tax commission.²⁷ Within 10 days of the report of commissioners being filed, the court clerk of the county is required to forward to the attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties a copy of the filed report.²⁸ The notice from the court clerk shall set forth the time limits for challenging the necessity of the taking and the amount of damages assessed.²⁹

The filing of the report of commissioners is the measuring stick for both parties and their respective cases. The assessment made by the court-appointed commissioners allows both parties time to review the estimate of just compensation placed on the condemned land. Either party has 30 days of the report of commissioners being filed to file an exception to the commissioners’ report.³⁰ Further, either party must file a written demand for jury trial within 60 days of the commissioners’ report to secure that the ultimate decision on just compensation is determined by a jury.³¹ Failure to file a proper exception, thereupon perfecting the appeal, forever bars the district court’s inquiry on any exception to the report of commissioners.³² Additionally, failing to timely file a demand for jury trial eliminates either party’s constitutional right for a jury to determine the amount of just compensation owed to the landowner for the taking.³³

Upon the condemnor paying the amount of the commissioners’ award into the district court, the condemnor is entitled to possession of the acquired land.³⁴ Once the award is paid into the court, the landowner is entitled to immediately withdraw the award for their use.³⁵ The condemnor has no interest in the apportionment of damages between the landowner and remaining defendants.³⁶

 

EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS

Although the condemnor is authorized to take possession of the acquired property, the landowner has the right to challenge the taking by filing an exception to the report of commissioners. Should the condemnor fail to establish the right to condemn, the landowner shall be restored to possession and paid for any damages caused by the condemnor by its possession.³⁷

In Bd. of County Comm’rs of Creek County v. Casteel,³⁸ the Oklahoma Supreme Court held, “Only an objection to the report of commissioners meet the statutory requirements necessary for bringing forth the issue of the necessity of the taking.”³⁹ Should either party fail to bring a written objection to the report of commissioners within 30 days of the filing of the report of commissioners, either party thereby waives “any constitutional or other challenge to the plaintiff’s right of eminent domain … on the necessity of the taking.”⁴⁰ Upon a party filing an exception to the commissioners’ report, a hearing is set, and the district court shall confirm, reject or for good cause order a new appraisement by the appointed commissioners.⁴¹ The character of the use of the condemned property is a judicial question as set forth in Article II Section 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

In eminent domain proceedings, the condemnor has the initial burden of proof to show it has the power to condemn, and the taking is necessary.⁴² The condemnor meets the initial burden of proof and makes a prima facie case of necessity by introducing into evidence a resolution of necessity or affidavit of necessity from the condemning authority.⁴³ Thereafter, the burden of proof then shifts to the condemnee to prove that the taking is not necessary.⁴⁴

In accordance with the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s holding in Public Serv. Co. of Okla. v. B. Willis,⁴⁵ the conditions at the time of the taking determine whether the taking of private property for public purposes is necessary.⁴⁶ The B. Willis court discussed the meaning of necessity, declaring that the necessity of the eminent domain power is not absolute but reasonable necessity and may properly be used unless there is a showing of “fraud, bad faith or an abuse of discretion.”⁴⁷ General public policy and statute govern the necessity, expediency and propriety of the power to condemn private property for public use.⁴⁸ It is a question of fact whether it is necessary to take a particular piece of property for a lawful purpose.⁴⁹ Once the trial court rules on the necessity, it will not be disturbed on appeal where evidence exists to support its findings.⁵⁰

A condemning authority’s valid declaration of necessity “will be viewed as conclusive by the courts in the absence of showing of actual fraud, bad faith, or an abuse of discretion by the condemning authority.”⁵¹ Furthermore, the B. Willis court stated in reviewing a challenge of the condemning authority right to condemn, the court examines two conjoined concepts: 1) the character of use of the proposed taking as a public use and 2) the necessity of the taking to carry out the proposed use.⁵²

Upon the condemnor paying the amount of the commissioners’ award into the court, the condemnor is entitled to possession of the acquired land.⁵³ Although the condemnor is authorized to take possession of the acquired property, the landowner has the right to challenge the taking by filing an exception to the report of commissioners. Should the condemnor fail to establish the right to condemn, the landowner shall be restored to possession and paid for any damages caused by the condemnor by its possession.⁵⁴ Once the award is paid into the court, the landowner is entitled to immediately withdraw the award for their use.⁵⁵ The condemnor has no interest in the apportionment of damages between the landowner and remaining defendants.⁵⁶

 

MOVING TOWARD JURY TRIAL

Once either party seeks a demand for jury trial, the next step is assembling your team for trial. As each eminent domain case presents unique challenges, significant time and thought must be given to each aspect of your case. There are two types of eminent domain cases: a total taking or a partial taking. A total taking is just as it sounds – the condemning authority is acquiring all the land the landowner owns in a given area. This includes any and all improvements associated with the land and any possible relocation costs. In a total taking case, the landowner is entitled to relocation, refitting and reestablishment costs due to the loss of either their home or business in the eminent domain case. Unlike in every other state, in Oklahoma, relocation costs and expenses are compensable items inside the eminent domain case for the jury to consider when determining the total amount of just compensation owed to the landowner.⁵⁷

Alternatively, a partial taking consists of the condemning authority acquiring only a part of the land owned by the landowner. Partial taking cases usually consist of the condemning authority acquiring a strip of land, either by fee or easement, from the landowner. In addition to the land acquired by the condemnor, the landowner may be compensated for any damages associated with the eminent domain action to the remaining property.

The attorney must consider which witnesses are needed and, most importantly, which appraiser will be used at trial to establish just compensation in either type of case. Typical witnesses in eminent domain cases are the landowners, appraisers, representatives from the condemning authority and civil engineers. Other potential witnesses are property development professionals, billboard valuators, government zoning representatives, real estate brokers, realtors, architects, planners and relocation, refitting and reestablishment experts.

As the only issue to determine in an eminent domain trial is just compensation owed to the landowner for the property taken plus damages to the remainder, if any,⁵⁸ the appraisers become the crucial witnesses in the case. An eminent domain appraisal is unlike a traditional appraisal. There are significant requirements for an eminent domain appraisal compared with a traditional appraisal, such as for a banking institution to secure a mortgage.

Whether the attorney represents the condemnor or condemnee, there are numerous issues for the attorney to consider before an appraiser is selected. Some of the things the attorney should consider when choosing the right appraiser for a case is local knowledge of the appraiser, professional designation of the appraiser, type of property being appraised, previous eminent domain appraisal experience, geographic competency, level of state licensing and prior trial experience. Other important aspects to consider when choosing an appraiser is the expertise they possess in valuing different types of properties. Valuing a residential home for eminent domain purposes is far different than valuing a convenience store or wind farm. The experience an appraiser has in valuing different types of real property is a key consideration. Once an appraiser is selected, a meeting with the appraiser and landowner is essential. This meeting is a great opportunity to ensure that both the attorney and appraiser are on the same page.

At the initial meeting, the parties should discuss the specific property and the type(s) of property rights associated with the property the condemning authority is acquiring from the landowner. Typical types of acquisitions in partial taking cases are fee acquisition, utility easements and temporary easements. The attorney should ask the appraiser what types of documents are needed to help them in developing an accurate and supportable appraisal. Appraisers commonly request surveys, previous appraisals on the property, the acquisition appraisal and notes and the legal description of the taking. Additionally, it is common for the appraiser to visit the property for a physical inspection. This list is not exclusive because each eminent domain case is unique.

It is important for the appraiser to know what definition of value is required by the court. Market value is the most generally used definition of value found in the appraisal process. The Oklahoma Uniform Civil Jury Instructions defines fair market value as, “The amount of money which a buyer, who is willing but does not have to buy, would pay an owner, who is willing but does not have to sell, to buy the property. The fair market value of a property should be determined according to the highest and best use for which it is suitable, regardless of what it may have been used for in the past or what future use the landowner may have intended for it.”⁵⁹ It is imperative that the appraiser recognizes this definition of fair market value when making their opinion of just compensation.

In the state of Oklahoma, there are three different levels of appraisal licensure: trainee, certified residential and certified general.⁶⁰ Each level of licensure has specific training and educational requirements and limits to what type of property the appraiser may appraise. A certified general appraiser is licensed to appraise all property types throughout the state of Oklahoma, whether residential or commercial. A certified residential appraiser is limited to only appraise residential properties. A trainee is an individual, typically learning through a certified general appraiser, who is starting their journey to becoming a licensed appraiser in the state of Oklahoma.

In addition to licensure type, the attorney should consider whether the appraiser holds any professional designations such as the MAI or SRA designation from the Appraisal Institute. These professional designations exceed the knowledge, training and experience of the minimal state licensure requirements. The MAI designation is for appraisers who evaluate all property types, while the SRA designation is focused on residential properties. The MAI and SRA designations from the Appraisal Institute are optimal for the appraiser who provides opinions of value, consulting, review appraisals and investment advice.⁶¹ Both designations require the appraiser to have either a bachelor’s degree or be a licensed certified general appraiser, pass intensive appraisal-specific classes, pass a final comprehensive examination, have good moral character and continuing education requirements.⁶²

One of the first steps an appraiser takes is performing an analysis of the larger parcel. Identification of the larger parcel also plays into the highest and best use conclusion that will be developed later. The larger parcel theory is defined by the property’s use, contiguity and ownership. The identification of the larger parcel will have a significant impact on the property’s market value. Next, the subject's highest and best use is developed. Highest and best use of the property must be reasonable, probable, physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible and maximally productive. An accurate determination of the highest and best use is critical to proper valuation.

When developing the market value of the property, it is essential for the appraiser to use proper data to support their conclusions. In eminent domain cases, unique damage issues arise. In those instances, special studies are needed to develop an opinion of market value. Those can include studies such as a proximity study, damage study, tree analysis, regression analysis, trending analysis, location quotient and hedonic price modeling. Each of these analyses will support the appraiser’s ultimate conclusion of just compensation owed to the landowners.

Another vital service the appraiser provides is making an analysis of the other side’s appraisal. Appraisers may have differing opinions based on differing professional standards, supported or unsupported damage conclusions or the lack of competence in eminent domain appraisals. The appraiser will assist the attorney in reviewing the other side’s appraisal to see whether the appraiser is using direct market evidence or unsupported speculation for their conclusions. An appropriately developed appraisal should have market support for each and every conclusion made by the appraiser.

 

MOVING THE CASE THROUGH DISCOVERY

After either party demands trial, an eminent domain case proceeds identically like all other civil litigation except for one change: The burden of proof is on the landowner, the defendant in the case, to prove the value of the property being acquired. All discovery tools of the Oklahoma Discovery Code are available to both sides.

From either the condemnor or condemnee’s perspective, requesting any appraisal of the property is a useful resource. The condemnor’s acquisition appraisal is admissible against the condemnor at trail.⁶³ If the landowner is claiming the property as an income-generating resource, copies of previous tax returns can verify the landowner’s claim.

Depositions are a valuable tool to have a complete understanding of the opposing side’s opinion of just compensation. At the deposition, obtaining a full and complete copy of the opposing appraiser’s report and work file is necessary in understanding their opinion of value. The workfile will contain all the supporting information for the appraiser’s findings and conclusions. The contents of the workfile, or more importantly what is missing, will be of great aid when challenging the appraiser’s credentials as an expert or attacking the appraiser on cross examination.

 

NEGOTIATIONS AND SETTLEMENT

Throughout the eminent domain case, the possibility of settlement continually exits. A helpful tool in finding a settlement is either settlement conferences or mediation. As we all know, litigation is expensive. A settlement conference or mediation is an ideal place for all parties to come to the table and have an independent party evaluate the case to aid in finding a possible resolution.

In settlement discussions, the attorney for the condemnor should consider how the settlement of one case will affect the other eminent domain cases on the same project. The attorney for the landowner should consider the settlement conference or mediation to be the last real chance to save their client money prior to trial because of the time and costs incurred in litigation. It is increasingly common in eminent domain cases that both sides agree that mediation or settlement conference is required prior to going to trial.

It is essential both sides recognize that whoever is chosen to help yield a potential settlement for the case, it is imperative that the mediator has a complete understanding of the complexities of eminent domain law. If this person is unfamiliar with eminent domain cases, a majority of the time will be spent educating this person instead of finding a resolution. An experienced individual can access each side’s case and point out the strengths and weaknesses to both parties in an attempt for settlement.

 

PRETRIAL MOTIONS

Just as with any other civil case, motions in limine are a great opportunity to shape the case in the most fashionable way possible for your client. As stated previously, eminent domain cases can present unique challenges, especially in partial taking cases. There are no restrictions as to the type of motions in limine a party may file with the court. Additionally, the use of expert witness testimony from appraisers and other professionals gives an attorney the opportunity of challenging the credentials and/or methodology via a Daubert challenge.

 

TRIAL

An eminent domain trial proceeds like any other case except that the landowner, the defendant, starts the trial because they have the burden of proof to prove their damages. From the opening moments of trial, it is crucial to establish your credibility and theory and themes of your case with the jury.

Voir dire is the first opportunity to start telling your story. The attorney for the landowner should begin with telling the landowner’s story and why this property is special and unique. The landowner’s attorney should attempt to flush out any biases the potential jurors have for awarding large sums of money for land and associated damages. The attorney for the condemning authority should question whether there are biases associated with the eminent domain process. Many individuals believe it is fundamentally wrong for the government or other authorized condemning entities to acquire private property through eminent domain proceedings.

In opening statements, highlight the key points of your case to the jury and tell them what to watch out for during the trial. This is a good opportunity to explain away a weakness in your case and what evidence the jury should look for regarding that topic. If you believe the opposing experts have holes, ask the jury to question all the experts and their credentials and methodologies. If your case has a significant advantage, point it out to the jury in the opening statement. Remind them to compare this strength of your case to how the other side views this issue.

Demonstrative exhibits are essential to tell your story to the jury. It is highly unlikely the jury will be allowed to view the property being condemned. Thus, the demonstrative exhibits allow for the attorney to bring the property into the courtroom. There are numerous options for demonstrative exhibits in eminent domain cases. Some common types of exhibits are ground and aerial photography. As technology advances, eminent domain cases are consistently on the forefront of that technology. Today, it is common to see overlaid construction of right-of-way or construction plans on aerial photos, videos of the property, videos of cars traveling up and down the highway, Google Earth drives, aerial flights and drone flights of the property or highway project.

Closing arguments are your last opportunity to lay your case out to the jury. It is important though to have a precise plan and not just regurgitate your entire case to the jury. Focus on the strengths of your case and key points your experts made throughout the trial. Use a key exhibit to illustrate these points. If opposing experts made mistakes, highlight these mistakes and ask the jury why they were made. At the end of your closing, make sure to thank the jury for their service and ask for a specific verdict.

 

CONCLUSION

As you can see, eminent domain practice is a highly detailed and specific area of law. There are many intricacies the attorney must be aware of, or their client could be harmed or precluded from challenging the eminent domain case.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Nick Atwood is a partner at the law firm of Ritchie Rock & Atwood. Mr. Atwood has extensive experience in all aspects of eminent domain law representing clients across the state of Oklahoma.

 

 

 

---

1. 2 Samuel 24: 20-24.
2. U.S. Const. Fifth Amendment.
3. Okla. Const. Art. II §24.
4. City of Pryor Creek v. Pub. Serv. Co., 1975 OK 81, ¶8, 536 P.2d 243.
5. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 2671 (2005) (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (alteration in original) (quoting 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 302 (M. Farrand ed., 1934)).
6. Bd. of Co. Comm’rs of Muskogee Co. v. Lowery, 2006 OK 31, ¶10, 136 P.3d 639 (quoting Albert H. Ellis, A History of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Oklahoma, p. iv (Introduction and Endorsement by William H. Murray, president of the Constitutional Convention) (1923)).
7. City of Pryor Creek at ¶9.
8. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Dye, 1953 OK 109, ¶9, 256 P.2d 438; McCrady v. Western Farmers Electric Co-operative, 1958 OK 43, ¶3, 323 P.2d 356; Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 149, ¶16, 354 P.2d, 458; Gaylord v. State ex rel. Dept. of Highways, 1975 OK 63, ¶16, 540 P.2d 558.
9. City of Tahlequah v. Lake Region Elec., Co-op, Inc., 2002 OK 2, ¶7, 47 P.3d 467; Drabek v. City of Norman, 1996 OK 126, ¶8, 946 P.2d 658.
10. City of Cushing v. Gillespie, 1953 OK 121, ¶0, 256 P.2d 418.
11. Stinchcomb v. Oklahoma City, 1921 OK 154, ¶0, 198 P. 508.
12. Allen v. Transok Pipe Line Co., 1976 OK 53, ¶12, 552 P.2d 375.
13. Okla. Const. Art. II §24.
14. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. B. Willis, 1997 OK 78, ¶16, 941 P.2d 995.
15. Okla. Stat. Tit. 27 §13.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. State ex rel. Depart. Of Transp. v. Metcalf, 2013 OK CIV APP 28, 298 P.3d 550.
19. Id at ¶20.
20. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Creek County v. Casteel, 1974 OK 31, ¶15, 522 P.2d 608.
21. Rummage v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp., 1993 OK CIV APP 39, ¶18, 849 P.2d 1109.
22. Okla. Stat. Tit. 66 §53; Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1203; Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1708.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Town of Ames v. Wybrandt, 1950 OK 197, 220 P.2d 693.
26. Okla. Stat. Tit. 66 §53(C); Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1203(c); and Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1708(b)(1); Public Serv. Co. of Okla. v. B. Willis, C.P.A., Inc., 1997 OK 78, ¶18, 941 P.2d 995.
27. Grand River Dam Authority v. Gray, 1943 OK 219, 138 P.2d 100.
28. Okla. Stat. Tit. 66 §55(A); Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1203(e)(1); and Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1708.
29. Id.
30. Okla. Const. Art. II §24; Okla. Stat. Tit. 65 §55; Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1203; Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1708.
31. Id.
32. Bd. of Co. Com’rs of Creek Co. v. Casteel, 1974 OK 31, ¶16, 522 P.2d 608; Blankenship v. Bone, 1974 OK CIV APP 54, ¶6, 530 P.2d 578.
33. Id.
34. State Dep’t of Highways v. O’Dea, 1976 OK 133, 555 P.2d 587; State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Post, 2005 OK 69, 125 P.3d 1183.
35. Okla. Stat. Tit. 66 §54.
36. Perkins Whistlestop, Inc. v. State, 1998 OK CIV APP 7, ¶6, 954 P.2d 1251 (citing Grand River Dam Auth. v. Gray, 1943 OK 219, 138 P.2d 100).
37. Okla. Stat. Tit. 66 §55; Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1203; Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1708.
38. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Creek County v. Casteel, 1974 OK 31, 522 P.2d 608.
39. Id at ¶16.
40. Blankenship v. Bone, 1974 OK CIV APP 54, ¶6, 530 P.2d 578.
41. Okla. Stat. Tit. 66 §55; Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1203; Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1708.
42. Delfeld v. City of Tulsa, 1942 OK 402, 131 P.2d 754; Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Beecher, 2011 OK CIV APP 233, Public Serv. Co. of Okla. v. B. Willis, 1997 OK 78, 941 P.2d 754; Rueb v. Oklahoma City, 1967 OK 233, 435 P.2d 139; and Bush v. Oklahoma City, 1944 OK 302, 154 P.2d 960.
43. Id.
44. Id.
45. Public Serv. Co. of Okla. v. B. Willis, 1997 OK 78, 941 P.2d 754.
46. Id at ¶18.
47. Id.
48. Arthur v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 1914 OK 181, ¶9, 141 P. 1.
49. Public Serv. Co. of Okla. v. B. Willis, 1997 OK 78, 941 P.2d 754.
50. City of Tulsa v. Williams, 1924 OK 136, 227 P. 876; McCrady v. Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, 1958 OK 43, 323 P.2d 356; Luccock v. City of Norman, 1978 OK 66, 578 P.2d 1204.
51. Public Serv. Co. of Okla. v. B. Willis, 1997 OK 78, ¶20, 947 P.2d 955, (citing Rueb v. Oklahoma City, 1967 OK 233, 435 P.2d 139; Luccock v. City of Norman, 1978 OK 66, 578 P.2d 1204).
52. Id.
53. State Dep’t of Highways v. O’Dea, 1976 OK 133, 555 P.2d 587; State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Post, 2005 OK 69, 125 P.3d 1183.
54. Okla. Stat. Tit. 66 §55; Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1203; Okla. Stat. Tit. 69 §1708.
55. Okla. Stat. Tit. 66 §54.
56. Perkins Whistlestop, Inc. v. State, 1998 OK CIV APP 7, ¶6, 954 P.2d 1251 (citing Grand River Dam Auth. v. Gray, 1943 OK 219, 138 P.2d 100).
57. State ex rel. Dep’t. of Transp. v. Little, 2004 OK 74, 100 P.3d 707.
58. Eberle v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Dept. of Highways, 1963 OK 224, ¶14, 385 P.2d 868.
59. Oklahoma Uniform Civil Jury Instructions 25.5.
60. Okla. Stat. Tit. 59 §858-713.
61. Appraisal Institute, “AI Designations,” www.appraisalinstitute.org/our-designations.
62. Id.
63. Oklahoma Transportation Authority v. Turner, 2008 OK CIV APP 31, 183 P.3d 168.