SPENCER v. WYRICK
392 P.3d 290
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Petitioners (registered voters in the Second Supreme Court District) challenged Governor Fallin’s appointment of Patrick Wyrick to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, seeking quo warranto or, alternatively, prohibition to bar him from office.
- Petitioners alleged Wyrick was constitutionally ineligible but did not plead facts showing they were entitled to the office or that they fit the statutory class of proper quo warranto plaintiffs.
- The Court assumed original jurisdiction because the matter is publici juris but examined subject-matter jurisdiction and appropriate remedy.
- The majority held quo warranto is the exclusive remedy to try title to an office; prohibition is not available to undo a completed appointment or try title.
- The Court found the action untimely and that petitioners lacked standing (not Attorney General, district attorney, or an actual contestant for the office), and dismissed the case with prejudice.
- Several justices wrote separately: Reif concurred (jurisdiction absent because Article 7B provides exclusive selection review), Edmondson partially concurred/dissented (argued Article 7 review may be available and petitioners failed to show other remedies inadequate), Watt concurred/dissented (would dismiss without prejudice for lack of factual record).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper remedy to challenge appointment (quo warranto vs. prohibition) | Quo warranto or prohibition are available to challenge Wyrick’s eligibility | Appointment completed; prohibition cannot undo a completed act; quo warranto is the exclusive remedy to try title | Quo warranto is exclusive for title challenges; prohibition is not available to undo a completed appointment |
| Standing / proper plaintiff for quo warranto | Petitioners (private citizens) may bring the challenge | Quo warranto plaintiffs must be Attorney General, district attorney, or an actual contestant for the office; private collateral attacks are not permitted | Petitioners lack standing; case is a collateral attack and must be dismissed |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction given Article 7B selection process | Petitioners argue constitutional eligibility can be reviewed by courts | Respondents rely on Article 7B scheme (Judicial Nominating Commission + Governor) and finality of that process for qualifications | Court assumed original jurisdiction to decide jurisdictional issue but concluded Article 7B process and lack of petitioner standing/timeliness required dismissal |
| Timeliness / adequacy of alternative remedies | Petitioners asserted other remedies are inadequate | Respondent and majority: petitioners failed to show other remedies were inadequate or that they fit statutory routes for removal/contest | Action untimely; petitioners did not demonstrate inadequacy of constitutional/statutory remedies; dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Sneed v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp., 683 P.2d 525 (Okla. 1983) (prohibition not available to try title to office)
- State ex rel. Rucker v. Tapp, 380 P.2d 260 (Okla. 1963) (quo warranto is the proper action to contest usurpation of office)
- State ex rel. Bd. of Regents v. McCloskey Bros., 227 P.3d 133 (Okla. 2009) (standing and proper parties for certain state remedies)
- Fent v. Henry, 257 P.3d 984 (Okla. 2011) (Judicial Nominating Commission decisions valid when decided by a majority)
- Graham v. Cannon, 574 P.2d 305 (Okla. 1978) (removal/suspension of judges governed by constitutional and statutory means)
- Romang v. Cordell, 243 P.2d 677 (Okla. 1952) (Supreme Court’s role to prevent constitutional violations presented by a justiciable cause)
- Vandelay Entertainment, L.L.C. v. Fallin, 343 P.3d 1273 (Okla. 2014) (recognition of inherent powers across government branches)