Daffin v. STATE EX REL. OKL. DEPT. OF MINES
2011 OK 22
Okla.2011Background
- Daffin challenged ODM's Minerals program rules (45 O.S. Supp.2008 724(H)(2) and OAC 460:10-17-6(a)) that limit informal-conference participation to residents within one mile of the proposed site; he resided beyond one mile but within the county flood-plain area near Dam Sites 32-34.
- Notice of the proposed mining operation was published in Sequoyah County; Daffin sought to participate in an informal conference but was excluded due to distance requirements.
- The trial court granted T&M Sand and Gravel's intervention, later vacated the intervention order, and ODM and T&M appealed.
- The court granted a preliminary injunction preventing ODM from holding an informal conference for T&M's permit application, pending constitutionality review of the statute and rule.
- The court ultimately held the ODM statute and rule unconstitutional due to due-process violations and affirmed the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ODM's informal-conference framework provide due process for affected property owners? | Daffin argues lack of notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard violates due process. | ODM argues procedures are adequate and that administrative-review remedies exist. | No; statute and rule unconstitutional; due process requires participation opportunities. |
| Do the state’s interests in an efficient permitting process outweigh individual due process rights? | Balancing interests favors individual rights to be heard before final decision. | Administrative efficiency justifies current procedures. | Balancing favors protection of due process; formal participation rights must be provided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice and hearing rights form a due process baseline)
- DuLaney v. Oklahoma State Department of Health, 868 P.2d 676 (Okla. 1993) (minimum notice and opportunity to contest permits for mineral interests)
- Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 925 P.2d 546 (Okla. 1996) (due process requires notice and hearing; pre- vs post-permit considerations)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor balancing test for due-process procedures)
- Loudermill v. City of Bedford Heights, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (pretermination hearings when a property interest is at stake)