Case Name: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION of the State OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant in Error
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1961-06-13
Citations: 363 P.2d 259
Docket Number: No. 39423
Parties: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION of the State OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant in Error.
Judges: WILLIAMS, C. J., BLACKBIRD, V. C. J., and WELCH, DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 363
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION of the State OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant in Error.
No. 39423.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
June 13, 1961.
Robert L. Gregory, County Atty., Garfield County, Enid, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Fred Hansen, First Asst. Atty. Gen., L. G. Hy-den, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albert D. Lynn, Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Ed Armstrong, Asst. Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
Otjen & Carter, by Frank Carter, Enid, for Oklahoma Farm Bureau, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff in error has lodged the present appeal from the same order of the State Board of Equalization appealed from in other cases this day decided, including cause No. 39321, Board of County Com'rs of Canadian County v. State Board of Equalization, Okl., 363 P.2d 242.
Complaint is herein made of said order's requirement that valuations in Garfield County be increased the same respective percentages as it is shown, in the cited case, to require in Canadian County.
There is no material difference between the arguments advanced under plaintiff in error's two propositions for reversal here, and those advanced under the first two propositions the appellant urged for reversal in that case, except here plaintiff in error adds to its second proposition, the assertion that the order " Will Deprive a Taxpayer of his Property Without Due Process of Law." However, plaintiff in error's brief sets forth no argument nor authority to support said assertion. It therefore presents no ground for reversal. Thrasher v. Board of Governors, Okl., 359 P.2d 717. All other arguments of plaintiff in error have been rejected as grounds for the order's reversal in Cause No. 39321, supra. The applicable portions of our opinion in that case are therefore adopted, by reference, as our opinion herein.
Affirmed.
The period for filing a petition for rehearing herein is also reduced to 10 days, as ordered in the cited case.
WILLIAMS, C. J., BLACKBIRD, V. C. J., and WELCH, DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.
IRWIN, J., concurs specially.
JACKSON, J., dissents.