Court Opinion

ID: 9535633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:51:26.899569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:17.511710
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent. Phillips Pet. Co. v. Corporation Commission, supra, does not support the majority’s refusal to enforce the provisions of 52 O.S.1971, § 10, against Transok.
The Court’s holding in Phillips that those statutory provisions (requiring a producer to make a portion of gas available to the landowner and authorizing the Corporation Commission to fix prices) were an invalid regulation under the police power which would constitute a taking as to Phillips, if enforced, was based on the fact that Phillips was not a public utility.
Transok is a public utility. The statutes plainly provide (See, e. g., 52 O.S.1971, § 36.1; 17 O.S.1971, § 151(a); 52 O.S.1971, § 5), and we have so held. (Allen v. Transok Pipe Line Company, Okl., 552 P.2d 375 (1976); Barnes v. Transok Pipe Line Company, Okl., 549 P.2d 819 (1976)).
We have recognized the validity of 52 O.S.1971, § 10, in previous decisions (Adkins v. Mustang Fuel Corp., Okl., 527 P.2d 842 (1974); Anchor Stone and Materials Company v. Carlin, Okl., 436 P.2d 650 (1968); In re Vance, Okl., 115 Okl. 8, 241 P. 164 (1925)), and Phillips does not support the majority’s refusal to enforce it here.
I am authorized to state that Justice WILLIAMS joins with me in this dissent.