Oklahoma Law. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Oklahoma, without reference to Oklahoma’s conflict of law provisions.
Oklahoma Law. This Lease shall be subject to and construed under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, even if executed is some other state. Venue shall be in the state or federal courts serving Xxxxx County, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Law. The laws of the State of Oklahoma shall govern the validity of this Agreement, the construction of its terms and the interpretation of the rights and duties of the Member.
Oklahoma Law. 6 "Order" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 "Ordinary Course of Business" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 "Organizational Documents" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 "Person" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 "Plan" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 "Proceeding" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 "
Oklahoma Law. This Note and the Security Instruments ---------------------------- are to be construed as one contract and each hereby referred to and made a part of the other. This Note is being executed and delivered and is intended to be performed in the State of Oklahoma and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Law. The City of Xxxxxx Case The express holding of City of Xxxxxx is that §1926(b) does not xxxxx Oklahoma’s Constitution. In that case, a rural water district sought a writ of mandamus to compel a city to cease water service to a customer situated within the district. The facts therein are substantially similar to this instant dispute. As here, the district argued, in pertinent part, that the city’s extension of water service contravened an exclusive right to serve arising from §1926(b). This Court in clear straightforward language rejected the argument on constitutional grounds. Applying Oklahoma law, it held instead: “We find no language purporting to grant an exclusive franchise. This is undoubtedly due to Article 5, Section 51, Oklahoma Constitution, which prohibits the granting of ‘exclusive rights, privileges or immunities’ by the Legislature.” Id, at page 492. The Court further rejected any argument, such as is being made to the Tenth Circuit in the instant case, which would allow the anti-competitive effect forbidden by Article 5, Section
Oklahoma Law. The Xxxxxxx Case In case there was any remaining doubt, Xxxxxxx reiterated this rule that the Legislature has no power to authorize the use of a federal loan to evade Article 5, Section 51. In doing so, it did two things. It unequivocally rejected the rural water district’s argument that the state loan statute should be construed in the same manner as §1926(b). This, the Court held, it simply could not do. Quoting from City of Xxxxxx, it reiterated its previous ruling: “[U]nder Article 5, Section 51, of the Oklahoma Constitution the Oklahoma Legislature was without power to grant an exclusive franchise to a water district. City of Xxxxxx, 501 P.2d at 493. Further, the constitutional prohibition could not be evaded by entering into a contract with the Farmers Home Administration. As in City of Xxxxxx ‘we will not ascribe to our Legislature an intention to violate Art. 5, Section 51, of the Oklahoma Constitution.”
Oklahoma Law. “Pipes in the Ground” The District argues to the Tenth Circuit that the applicability of a federal “pipes in the ground” test is compatible with Oklahoma law. This is not correct. Such a theory impermissibly extends the reach of §1926(b) to new customers who were not part of the water system being financed at the time the loan was made. As discussed above, that is the very point at which Xxxxxxx xxxx the line! Id, at page 875. This Court has consistently recognized that exclusivity is exclusivity is exclusivity. Even in the face of creative arguments to the contrary, this Court has refused to be distracted from the essence of Article 5, Section 51. In City of Xxxxxx, the device was a contract. In Xxxxxxx, it was a state loan program. Here, it is a federal “pipes-in-the-ground” rationale for exclusive service. Regardless of the expedient, the City of Xxxxxx rule is – and must remain -- the same. Any theory extending exclusive rights to serve new customers not identifiable as actual collateral at the time the loan was made produces the very anti-competitive effect proscribed by Article 5, Section 51.
Oklahoma Law. This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Further, this Contract shall be construed as having been drafted by both of the parties hereto, and not by one party to the exclusion of the other.
Oklahoma Law. This Hunting Land License Agreement is construed under and in accordance with the laws of Oklahoma. Landowner is to be afforded recreational use immunity to the extent provided for under Oklahoma law.
