INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT # 52 v. HOFMEISTER Skip to Main Content Accessibility Statement Help Contact Us e-payments Careers Home Courts Decisions Programs News Legal Research Court Records Quick Links OSCN Found Document:INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT # 52 v. HOFMEISTER Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case Print Only INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT # 52 v. HOFMEISTER2020 OK 56Case Number: 117081Decided: 06/23/2020THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2020 OK 56, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT # 52 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY (Midwest City-Del City); INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #57 OF GARFIELD COUNTY (Enid); INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #71OF KAY COUNTY (Ponca City); and INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #89 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY (Oklahoma City), Plaintiffs/Appellants, v.JOY HOFMEISTER, Superintendent of Oklahoma State Department of Education; OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION; and KEN MILLER, Oklahoma State Treasurer, Defendants/Appellees,andTULSA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, I-1 OF TULSA COUNTY; SAND SPRINGS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, I-2 OF TULSA COUNTY; BROKEN ARROW PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, I-3 OF TULSA COUNTY; BIXBY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, I-4 OF TULSA COUNTY; JENKS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, I-5 OF TULSA COUNTY; UNION PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, I-9 OF TULSA COUNTY and OWASSO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, I-11 OF TULSA COUNTY and OKLAHOMA PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL ASSOCIATION, Intervenor Defendants/Appellees,andWESTERN HEIGHTS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1-41 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, Plaintiff,v.THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel., OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JOY HOFMEISTER, State Superintendent of Public Instruction for The State of Oklahoma; OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION; and KEN MILLER, Oklahoma State Treasurer, Defendants/Appellees. APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY ΒΆ0 School Districts filed an action in District Court and alleged they received insufficient State Aid payments for the years 1992-2014. They sought writs of mandamus to compel defendants to demand and recoup excessive State Aid payments made to other school districts, and then pay the correct apportionments to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment and intervenors, school districts in Tulsa County, sought summary judgment against plaintiffs. The Honorable Thomas Prince, District Judge, granted intervenors' motion for summary judgment and concluded the defendants did not have a duty to seek repayment of excessive State Aid payments made to other schools until an audit was performed by auditors approved by the State Auditor and Inspector. Plaintiffs appealed and the Supreme Court retained the appeal. We hold: The audit used by the State Board of Education when demanding repayment must be performed by auditors approved by the State Auditor and Inspector. A school district possesses a legal right to a proper apportionment of State Aid regardless of excessive payments made to other districts. A school district lacks a cognizable legal interest and standing in a claim to compel the State Board of Education to fund a lapsed appropriation. Plaintiffs' filings raise the issue of their standing to judicially compel legislative appropriations. Standing must be adjudicated on remand. DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PARTAND CAUSE REMANDED ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals