SPENCER v. WYRICK, 2017 OK 19

Petitioners, residents and registered voters of the Second Supreme Court District, sought to challenge Governor Fallin's appointment of Patrick Wyrick to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
They request quo warranto relief or, alternatively, a writ of prohibition barring Wyrick from exercising office.
They contend Wyrick is ineligible to sit as a Justice, asserting a constitutional challenge to his qualifications.
The Court assumed original jurisdiction but dismissed the action with prejudice as a collateral attack by private individuals.
The Court held that prohibition is not available to undo a completed act and a quo warranto action is the exclusive remedy, which was not properly presented here by private petitioners.
The ruling denied petitioners’ requests and addressed jurisdictional and standing issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioners have standing to challenge Wyrick’s qualifications	Spencer and Chandler argue they are residents/voters questioning qualifications	Defendants contend this is an improper collateral attack by private individuals and not the proper quo warranto plaintiff	Dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing and improper remedy
Whether the Court has subject matter/original jurisdiction to review the qualifications issue	Petitioners seek judicial review of qualifications	Court has limited original jurisdiction and this challenge falls outside proper channels	Assumed but ultimately dismissed; action barred by lack of standing and procedural posture
Whether prohibition or quo warranto is the proper remedy	Petitioners seek prohibition or quo warranto to void appointment	Prohibition is not available for completed acts; quo warranto is exclusive but not properly invoked by private petitioners	Prohibition unavailable; quo warranto is exclusive remedy, not properly invoked here

Sneed v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 683 P.2d 525 (1983 OK 69) (collateral attack not permitted; quo warranto appropriate remedy when challenging office)
State ex rel. Bd. of Regents v. McCloskey Bros., 227 P.3d 133 (2009 OK 90) (quo warranto considerations and standing noted)
Graham v. Cannon, 574 P.2d 305 (1978 OK 9) (removal/remedies for judicial officers discussed)
Vandelay Entertainment, LLC v. Fallin, 343 P.3d 1273 (2014 OK 109) (talks about judicial/constitutional remedies and jurisdiction)
FENT v. HENRY, 257 P.3d 984 (2011 OK 10) (jurisdiction and process related to appointment/nomination)