OSAGE NATION v. BD. OF COMMISSIONERS OF OSAGE COUNTY and OSAGE NATION v. OSAGE COUNTY BD. OF ADJUSTMENT
2017 OK 34
| Okla. | 2017Background
- The Osage Nation and Osage Minerals Council sued Osage County (Board of Commissioners and Board of Adjustment) and Osage Wind, LLC, challenging issuance and enforcement of a 2011 conditional use permit (CUP) for a utility-scale wind farm and the validity of a 2011 Osage County Wind Energy Ordinance.
- Two district-court proceedings were decided by one journal entry: CV-2014-36 (appeal from Board of Adjustment decisions) and CV-2014-41 (declaratory judgment and permanent injunction seeking to void the permit and Ordinance).
- The District Court dismissed both actions: CV-2014-36 was dismissed as untimely under the statutory 10-day appeal requirement for board-of-adjustment decisions; CV-2014-41 was dismissed largely on laches (delay) and, in part, for lack of standing based on reliance on prior federal proceedings.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the board-appeal (No. 113,415) and affirmed dismissal of injunctive and CUP-related declaratory claims against Osage Wind and the county (No. 113,414) because laches barred equitable relief. The Court reversed only the District Court’s standing ruling insofar as it relied on an incorrect standard to dismiss the Nation’s facial challenge to the Ordinance’s adoption procedure and remanded that single declaratory claim for further proceedings.
- The opinion distinguishes: (a) jurisdictional timeliness of appeals from boards of adjustment (statutory 10-day rule), (b) availability of laches to bar injunctions and related equitable/declaratory relief where plaintiff unreasonably delayed and defendants incurred substantial, known expenditures, and (c) that a facial challenge to an ordinance’s adoption procedure (not tied to injunctive relief against an ongoing project) remains reviewable and was remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from Board of Adjustment | The 2014 appeal was a proper challenge to the Board’s authority and to the 2011 permit; timeliness should not be defeated by claimed jurisdictional technicalities | Statutory 10-day appeal requirement for board-of-adjustment decisions bars a 2014 attempt to appeal a 2011 decision | Affirmed: 10-day statutory limit is jurisdictional; 2014 appeal of the 2011 CUP was untimely and properly dismissed |
| Availability of injunctive relief (laches) | Delay is fact-specific; laches is not generally resolvable on a motion to dismiss and should not bar relief where public-interest claims exist | Plaintiffs waited ~3 years after the 2011 CUP and construction began; defendants expended vast sums and materially prejudiced; laches bars equitable relief | Affirmed: laches bars all injunctive relief and CUP-linked declaratory relief against Osage Wind and the county |
| Standing to challenge Ordinance adoption procedure | The Nation has a cognizable interest to seek declaratory relief attacking the Ordinance’s validity and adoption irregularities | Defendants relied on prior federal findings and argued lack of injury/standing; trial court relied on federal record to deny standing | Reversed in part: District Court applied incorrect standard relying on federal litigation; Nation’s facial procedural challenge to the Ordinance was not facially insufficient and is remanded for adjudication of standing and merits |
| Appellate record / procedure and preservation of issues | Appellant claims procedural errors at trial and entitlement to de novo review; rights preserved by participation | Many objections and documentary materials were absent from the appellate record; oral dismissal motions were permitted; issues not raised at trial are waived | Affirmed: appellate review limited by record; procedural objections not preserved; absence of necessary pleadings/evidence in record precludes review of some claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Mustang Run Wind Project, LLC v. Osage County Board of Adjustment, 387 P.3d 333 (Okla. 2016) (addressed county board authority and related zoning questions)
- American Natural Resources, LLC v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, LP, 374 P.3d 766 (Okla. 2016) (standard for appellate review of motions to dismiss under Rule 1.36 and pleading sufficiency)
- O’Rourke v. City of Tulsa, 457 P.2d 782 (Okla. 1969) (board of adjustment exercises quasi-judicial power and cannot test constitutional validity of zoning ordinance)
- Bankoff v. Board of Adjustment of Wagoner County, 875 P.2d 1138 (Okla. 1994) (discusses reliance and vested property interests arising from permits)