OSAGE NATION v. BD. OF COMMISSIONERS OF OSAGE COUNTY and OSAGE NATION v. OSAGE COUNTY BD. OF ADJUSTMENT
2017 OK 34
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Osage Nation and Osage Minerals Council sued Osage County Boards and Osage Wind challenging (a) the County Wind Energy Ordinance’s validity and (b) a 2011 conditional use permit (CUP) issued to Osage Wind for a large-scale wind facility; plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Plaintiffs participated in the 2011 Board of Adjustment hearing opposing the permit but did not timely appeal that decision to district court; some construction began and substantial development expenditures were alleged.
- Plaintiffs filed two related district-court actions in 2014: (1) CV-2014-41 (declaratory and injunctive relief against county and developer) and (2) CV-2014-36 (appeal / petition to vacate the 2011 permit). The trial court dismissed both matters in a single journal entry.
- The trial court dismissed CV-2014-41 on laches and standing/preclusion grounds as to many claims, and dismissed CV-2014-36 as untimely under the ten-day appeal statute for board decisions.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court consolidated review of the two appeals: it affirmed dismissal of the board-appeal (CV-2014-36), affirmed dismissal on laches for injunctive relief and declaratory claims tied to the CUP, but reversed and remanded one narrow claim challenging the validity of the Wind Energy Ordinance’s adoption procedure for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 2014 appeal from Board of Adjustment (CV-2014-36) | 2014 appeal was timely because the Board lacked jurisdiction to issue a CUP, so statutory time limits shouldn’t bar review of a void action or of a petition to vacate | Statute requires notice of appeal within ten days from board decision; 2014 appeal sought review of a 2011 decision and is therefore untimely | Affirmed: 10‑day statutory time to appeal is jurisdictional; 2014 filing was too late to challenge the 2011 permit |
| Use of oral motion to dismiss at trial and adequacy of appellate record | Trial procedure and conversion to summary judgment were improper; claimed right to de novo trial review | Appellant failed to preserve objections and appellate record lacks necessary board/district pleadings | Affirmed: issues requiring documents not in record are not reviewable; procedural objections waived when not raised below |
| Laches as a bar to injunctive relief against developer and county | Delay (nearly 3 years after the 2011 permit and after construction began) was excusable; public-interest and sovereign-defendant exceptions apply | Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed, developer relied in good faith and made large expenditures, and equitable relief would be inequitable; laches bars injunctions here | Affirmed: laches bars all injunctive claims against Osage Wind and related injunctive relief against county entities |
| Declaratory challenge to validity of Wind Energy Ordinance adoption | Ordinance adoption was procedurally defective (public notice failed to show amendment to zoning) and thus may be invalidated | Defendants argue preclusion, lack of standing, and that plaintiff's delay and prior litigation defeat relief | Reversed and remanded on limited ground: plaintiffs may proceed on the facial claim challenging the ordinance’s adoption procedure; trial court used incorrect standard on standing for that narrow claim; other declaratory claims tied to the CUP are barred by laches |
Key Cases Cited
- Mustang Run Wind Project, LLC v. Osage County Bd. of Adjustment, 387 P.3d 333 (Okla. 2016) (held county board of adjustment may grant conditional use permits; governs statutory framework for appeals)
- American Natural Resources, LLC v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, LP, 374 P.3d 766 (Okla. 2016) (motion-to-dismiss review standard and acceptance of pleading allegations)
- Stites v. DUIT Const. Co., Inc., 903 P.2d 293 (Okla. 1995) (appeal time limits are mandatory even if a decision is thought invalid)
- O'Rourke v. City of Tulsa, 457 P.2d 782 (Okla. 1969) (boards of adjustment exercise quasi-judicial power and cannot test constitutional validity of ordinances)