PHYSICAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES, AND THE RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS OF LAW FOR ADEQUATE EVIDENCE.
(2) TO THE ACT OF LOCATING LINES, ANGLES, ELEVATIONS, NATURAL AND MANMADE FEATURES IN THE AIR, ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH, WITHIN UNDERGROUND WORKINGS AND ON BEDS OF BODIES OF WATER;
(3) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING AREAS AND VOLUMES, FOR THE MONUMENTING OF PROPERTY AND LAND BOUNDARIES, AND FOR THE PLATTING AND LAYOUT OF LANDS AND SUBDIVISIONS (INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY), AND FOR THE PREPARATION AND PERPETUATION OF MAPS, RECORD PLATS, FIELD NOTE RECORDS, AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS THAT REPRESENT THESE SURVEYS.
THEREFORE, UNDER 59 O.S. 475.2(7), I THINK THAT A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY CONSTITUTES THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING ONLY IF IT INVOLVES ALL THREE OF THESE COMPONENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SURVEYING ACTIVITIES THAT YOU HAVE LISTED SHOULD BE INDIVIDUALLY SCRUTINIZED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY INVOLVE ALL THREE COMPONENTS.
UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE UNEARTHED NO OKLAHOMA COURT DECISIONS OR PRIOR ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS THAT ILLUSTRATE HOW THIS COMPONENT APPROACH TO 59 O.S. 475.2(7), IS APPLIED TO PARTICULAR LAND SURVEYING PRACTICES. NEVERTHELESS, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CASES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT DO DISCUSS THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING. ALTHOUGH THESE CASES WERE DECIDED UNDER DIFFERENT DEFINITIONAL STATUTES, I THINK THAT THEY ARE USEFUL IN GENERALLY ILLUSTRATING THE KIND OF INQUIRY THAT MUST BE UNDERTAKEN IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY CONSTITUTES THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING. IN MY OPINION, THESE CASES ESTABLISH TWO IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES: (1) THE PARTICULAR LAND SURVEYING ACTIVITY IN QUESTION MUST BE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL AND THEN COMPARED WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION; AND (2) PRACTICES INVOLVING NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES MAY CONSTITUTE THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING IF THEY MEET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION.
A CALIFORNIA CASE, HILL V. KIRKWOOD, 326 P.2D 599 (CAL. APP. 1958), ILLUSTRATES THE FIRST PRINCIPLE. THERE, A GROUP OF TAX PAYERS FILED A SUIT TO ENJOIN STATE OFFICIALS FROM PAYING A COMPANY THAT HAD PERFORMED CERTAIN AERIAL SURVEYING WORK. THE TAXPAYERS ARGUED THAT THE WORK HAD BEEN PERFORMED ILLEGALLY BECAUSE THE COMPANY PERFORMING THE AERIAL SURVEY WAS NOT LICENSED AS A LAND SURVEYOR. FOR SEVERAL REASONS, THE HILL COURT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT.
FIRST, THE COURT CONSIDERED IN SOME DETAIL WHAT PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE SURVEYING COMPANY. IT APPROVED THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CONTRACT FOR THE SURVEY AT ISSUE:
". . . REQUIRED DEFENDANT HYCON MANUFACTURING COMPANY TO FURNISH TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS PREPARED BY THE PROCESS KNOWN AS AERIAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY. THE MAPS ACTUALLY COMPILED AND FURNISHED BY IT WERE ENTIRELY PREPARED BY MEANS OF SAID PROCESS. THE PRINCIPAL PORTION OF SAID PROCESS CONSISTS OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE TERRAIN TO BE MAPPED AND A MAP COMPILATION FROM SAID AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS THROUGH THE USE OF PHOTOGRAMMETRIC PLOTTING MACHINERY. A MAP COMPILATION THROUGH THE USE OF SAID MACHINERY DOES NOT, AND IN THE CASE OF SAID CONTRACT DID NOT, REQUIRE THE MEASUREMENT OF ANY ANGLES OR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF TRIGONOMETRY EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO SUPPLY "GROUND CONTROL" DATA AS HEREINAFTER FOUND. IN THE