*1 In the situation at hand we exam- procedures
ined the federal rules and set petition-
forth at 25 C.F.R. Part 11 suggested provision
er find no con-
cerning procedure by which service of
process of an court upon district Oklahoma specifies
an Indian be had. Petitioner particular provision any separate
no nor has self-govern-
resolution of the tribe whose purportedly
ment was interfered with been
brought to our attention. Supreme
The New Mexico Court in State
Securities, Anderson, supra, exam- immunity process
ined whether from
necessary to avoid interference with tribal
self-government, test set
forth
Supreme
United States
Court
Lee,
in Williams v.
U.S.
S.Ct.
with self-government Indian was found.
We find also none. reasons,
For the above we assume deny
diction and petitioner’s request prohibition.
writ of
IRWIN, J., BARNES, C. V. C.
LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE and JJ.,
OPALA, concur.
GULFSTREAM PETROLEUM CORPO-
RATION, corporation, Petitioner,
Judge LAYDEN, Robert A. District
Judge Pittsburg County,
Respondent.
No. 55809. Court Oklahoma.
May provisions Benally of such v. Marcum there also control the extra- specific procedure process for extradition set forth in dition eignty is inherent in tribal sover- Navajo Citing case, Navajo Tribal code. the Turtle Tribe. the New Mexico Court found in view
Oklahoma. Both Gulfstream and Hamilton gas Brothers own oil and leases in the sec- tion. applications
In 1978 Gulfstream filed with the Oklahoma Commission under- space pool certain formations lying applications 18. The were section heard, recommended, granted, but for order was issued some reason Later, two weeks before the order. of time applied Gulfstream for an extension hearing on Gulf- At the to drill a well. Brothers, out application Hamilton stream’s time, sought to elect under the in the well. Gulf- participate of time for an extension application stream’s granted; Hamilton Brothers’ election pro- then drilled was denied. Gulfstream (Red Oak) ducing well to the Middle Atoka formation. sought
Hamilton has never ad- Brothers appellate from ministrative or relief these orders of the Commission. Instead, February some nineteen issued, pooling order was months after the quiet this title ac- Hamilton Brothers filed seek, things, a among other they tion. In it the Commission determination issue the or- jurisdiction spacing order there was no der because is void. effect and petitions this court now Gulfstream writ original jurisdiction and issue a assume the trial court prohibition, prohibiting They proceeding in the cause. Miller, Miller, from further Robert A. Crabtree & Okla- juris- necessary City, petitioner. argue homa for that all elements time the diction existed at the Watson, Jr., Books, H. B. and Richard K. question of pooling order. The entered the Watson, Moricoli, McKenzie & Oklahoma existed when the whether a City, respondent. not, Gulf- was entered pooling order constituting question a fact argues, stream LAVENDER, Justice: elements of proof of one original This is an action in which the They con- jurisdiction. the Commission’s Corpora- Petroleum petitioner, Gulfstream lacks clude that the trial court tion, prohibit respon- asks this court to do question, because to entertain such judge further dent trial from attack on so would be to allow a collateral him, quiet title action the cause before an order Company. filed Hamilton Brothers Oil de- original jurisdiction, but township We assume The land involved is section north, east, writ. range Pittsburg County, cline to issue the 87.1,7 Supp.1977
I.
makes
spacing order before a
merely
statute,
By
collateral attacks on orders of
directory,
requirement
is not
prohibited.1
Commissionare
dictional.8 If
the other hand the
on
statute
Generally, the district courts of this state
*3
mandatory,
requirement
makes it
jurisdiction
inquire
lack the
to even
into the
jurisdictional.9
is
Whether a statute is di-
of
validity
these
A
court in
orders.2
district
rectory only
depends,
or
mandatory
is
the
however,
may,
collateral
ex-
determined, upon
extent it can
the
in-
amine
Commission order for
legislature.
of
tent
the
We have held:
jur-
determining
the limited
the
of
providing
the
in
the
If
lawmakers
method
of
its
isdiction
the
lack
only
steps
such
in
an
of
had mind
advisa-
thereof, to
order.3
issue the
advancement,
orderly
ble manner of
jurisdiction
The three
of
elements
had not in
the
of the
mind
nature
jurisdiction
person, (2) jurisdiction
over the
ment to be rendered when
course
the
matter,
(3) jurisdiction
over the
run,
usually
then such statutes are
re-
particular judgment.4
to render the
There
directory,
garded as
and will be con-
is
problem
personal jurisdic-
no
here with
only
proce-
in
the
determining
sidered
subject-matter
jurisdiction.
tion or
dure, and are entitled to no consideration
question is
whether the
Com-
judicial
the
determining
in
jurisdiction
mission had
par-
to render the
judgment.
court to render
Facts show-
judgment,
ticular
the
order.. That
ing compliance with such statutes are
question in
depends
turn
on whether the
clearly quasi jurisdictional only, and not
entry
of a spacing order is a
subject to consideration in
at-
collateral
prerequisite
the
of a
order.
hand,
appears
other
tack. On the
if
be,5
commonly
It is
thought to
and we have
in
the enactment of such statute the
court, however,
implied that it
This
is.6
lawmakers,
providing step
while
in
the
upon
question
been called
to answer the
uppermost
procedure, had
in mind the
directly.
step upon
of
effect
the
question
the
rendered,
answer to
is mat
thereafter to be
and intended
statutory interpretation.
ter of
the
If
stat
taking
step
procedure
the
of
in
the
authority
ute that creates the
for the Com
precedent
condition
to the existence
orders,
mission’s
52
judicial power
O.S.
of
of a court to there-
Homer,
12, 13,
provides
part:
1.
1971
52 O.S.
111
in
4. Abraham v.
102
§
226 P.
45,
(1924).
47
upon
No collateral
shall
attack
be allowed
orders,
regulations
rules and
of the Commis-
Nesbitt,
5.
A Primer on Forced
of Oil
sion ....
Oklahoma,
in
and Gas Interests
50 Okl.B.J.
Hart,
(1979);
Practice,
654-55
Conservation
in
O.S.1971
111
continues:
Institute,
OBA/CLE
53,
Practical Oil
Gas Law
reviewing
sole
[T]he
method of
such orders
58
Mr. Hart refers
existence
inquiring
determining
into
their
va-
qua
unit as
sine
“[t]he
justness,
lidity,
reasonableness or correctness
non for
interests.”
orders,
appeal
shall be
regulations
from such
rules or
Court....
No
Payne,
6. Helmerich &
Court,
except
court
this State
mission,
1975);
(Okl.
532 P.2d
422-23
see
appeal,
provided,
and it
on
as herein
Southern Union Production
Eason Oil
Co.
review, reverse,
shall have
an-
1975).
(Okl.App.
607-08
P.2d
nul, modify
order, rule,
or correct
regulation
gen-
the Commission within
applies
This is the version of section
7.
87.1
scope
authority
enjoin,
eral
of its
herein or to
these orders. The statute
to
many times,
has been amended
suspend
operation
restrain or
execution or
year.
again
last
amended
thereof ....
ch.
..
1980 Okla.Sess.Laws
Keen,
See also Shell
Oil Co.
(Okl. 1960).
Abraham v.
Oki. at
P. at
3. State ex rel.
Comm’rs
the Land Office v.
P.2d
(Okl. 1979).
Id.
rights
royalty
interest owners
judgment,
particular
after
render
facts,
being
working interest owners are treated
while in a sense
and of
then such
pro-
jurisdic-
A
order serves to
clearly
separately.
quasi jurisdictional, are
rights working inter-
facts,
tect the correlative
necessary to the existence
tional
owners,
by pooling their interests.12
jurisdiction.
Such
est
the third element
necessary and sufficient to
mandatory one.10
order is
statute is a
purposes.13
conservation
satisfy the other
provid-
legislature,
We believe that the
only one
It creates the unit.
It directs that
orders,
uppermost
had
ing
unit,14
specif-
within a
well be drilled
prior spacing order.
mind the effect of a
location,15
drilling a well at another
ic
pro-
language
This
clear from the
viola-
operating a well drilled in
location or
orders,
authorizing pooling
vision
O.S.
prohibited.16
tion of
*4
87.1(e),
Supp.1977
provides:
which
§
royalty
spacing
pools
also
The
separately
owned
When two
more
within the unit.17
interests
within an
tracts of land are embraced
a
spacing order is not
The
unit,
there
established
or where
process of en-
procedural step in the
mere
owned,
separately
are undivided interests
is, rather, an
tering
pooling order.
It
tracts and
separately
or both such
owned
The
compulsory requirement.
essential and
undivided interests embraced within
require-
compliance with this
result of
the owners
established
in such decree as
ment —the unit —“inheres
pool their interests
validly
thereof
part
substantial
a material and
Where,
develop
their lands as a unit.
18
pools
work-
ment itself.”
however,
agreed
owners
not
to
unit; without an estab-
ing interests in a
one such
pool their interests and where
pool. We
noting
there is
to
lished unit
separate
proposes
owner has drilled or
to
that a
therefore hold
a well on said unit to the common
drill
entry of a
jurisdictional prerequisite to the
supply,
source of
to
pooling order.
wells,
unnecessary
avoid the
shall,
protect
rights,
upon
to
correlative
that,
is clear that
Having decided
it
proper application
hearing
therefor and a
existence or non
relating
the facts
thereon, require
pool
such owners
at the time the
existence of a
develop
their lands in the
unit as
jurisdictional
order was issued are
[Emphasis
unit.
added.]
inquired
in a
They may be
into
facts.19
language
prior spacing
The
makes a
above
we therefore
proceeding,20
collateral
mandatory.
prohibition against
a writ of
decline
issue
court.
the trial
prior spacing order
necessity
The
for a
statutory scheme.
appears
also
from the
II.
statutes,
The
conservation
below,
one,
in the action
Gulf-
prevent
In defense
which section 87.1 is
is to
They
issues.
rights.11
waste and
The
raised several other
stream
87.1(c).
O.S.Supp.1977
§
14. 52
10.
Id at
11. e. v. Office Carter Oil 336 P.2d 1093 Court, (Okl. 1959); 87.1(e). Tenneco Oil Co. v. District Id. 16. Lee, (Okl.1970); dik v. 465 P.2d Hla (Okl.1975). Id. 17. 87.1(e). O.S.Supp.1977 at at 226 P. 18. Abraham The statute purpose, does recite another “to avoid the drill- 48. unnecessary ing of wells.” 13-14, 15, 226 P. at Id. at 48. Necessity Note, The 13. See Oil and Gas: Obtaining Drilling, Land Office Order Before State ex rel. Comm’rs P.2d at 677. Okla.L.Rev. I original proceeding agree can with the when majority
were briefed this it here, but it not us been for prerequisites jur- recites the elements or pursue address can them isdiction,1 them. Gulfstream agree and can should do, however, in the action below. We have be assumed. one further observation to make. I reasons cannot further concur are It common for the Com- two: applications mission receive simultaneous opinion of the Court raises and Typically orders. dignifies paper records of the Cor- they together, together, are filed heard rec- poration height Commission the together, ap- ommended and the orders (A a common law roll. proved signed together. such case complete break with de- the historic does matter which order is the first to bodies). velopment of administrative signatures which of the Commissioners ignores opinion the time honored are affixed. In either we hold case doctrine and distinction true between jurisdictional prerequisite is satisfied. quasi jur- elements and In this case we are told that Gulfstream’s isdictional facts. applications together, two were heard filed together, together. It recommended Spacing Quasi Order Jurisdictional error, only through processing we are *5 Fact; A Condition Precedent told, that presented the orders were not Homer, 12, 14, In Abraham Okl. the signature together. Commissioners for (1924), P. we held: processing We consider this error to be de controlling by minimis “Whenever a statute which and not under the facts the Therefore, of this case. if evi- merely Gulfstream’s court has determined to be not described, dence shows the error be directory absolutely mandatory but the party and if no is shown to have been done, Legislature required has be acts to prejudiced impaired by or his rights had the provides that the Court shall not delay signing between the of the two or- particular judgment render a ders, jurisdictional prerequisite showing compliance facts with such stat- will have been satisfied. We leave the trial ute, jurisdictional then facts court, of the case to the trial but if that power of the the Court to render that turns out to true will pooling be the order particular judgment.” (Emphasis sup- to be found valid. plied). SUMED; PETITION HIBITION DENIED. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION FOR WRIT OF PRO- AS- of “All such facts not the existence of [******] the constituting proof subject matter, action, nor of the cause of but conditions IRWIN, J., WILLIAMS, C. SIMMS precedent to right the of the Court to HARGRAVE, JJ., concur. proceed acquired jurisdiction after BARNES, HODGES, C.V. DOO- per- over the matter and of OPALA, JJ., LIN and dissent. son, quasi jurisdictional are known as DOOLIN, Justice, dissenting: facts.” itself, today adopting adjudication quasi jurisdiction-
This Court
A Court’s
reverses
of
agree.
a rule with
I
prohibition
which cannot
facts
not fall
al
does
within the
City,
plied
ques-
City
The
1. Fitzsimmons
of Okla.
within
conservation act.
spacing
Judgment Roll Status majority raises the function of a keeper menial record under absolute
control Commission to
the status of a in a Clerk Common Law gives predominantly It
Court.
adminis-
WILSEY,
CO.,
body, though admittedly
trative
a constitu-
BENNETT
a California
Indemnity
one, possessing judicial,
legislative
tional
and Industrial
Petitioners,
Company,
Insurance
power,3
deciding
and executive
the status of
what shall
an
constitute
official
granted
check,
roll.4 This status is
Hughes
Gerald GRANT
Paul
kind,
guidance
pre-
restraint
Co.,
Trucking
Respondents.
sumably
constitutional denials from
regulations might
be reviewable.
Hughes
Paul
Paul
Truck
HUGHES d/b/a
ing
Company,
Wilsey,
Bennett
Commission’s
Corporation,
California
and Industrial
legislative
judicial
act in
areas is limit-
Indemnity
Company,
Insurance
Petition
words, I
nothing
ed.5 In other
find
within
ers,
the Constitution of
Art.
Oklahoma:
Art.
1 and Art. 7
or the
statutes which
authorizes
the establishment of officers
*7
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BELLE
equivalent
with functions
to the Clerk of
VILLE, Administrator, Respondent.
(Common
Courts)
District Courts
Law
53808,
Nos.
(general) jurisdiction.
one of common law
How
Court
Oklahoma.
Corporation
Commission’s
given
records
common law effect and
June
dignity by this Court? Who besides the
Rehearing
Aug.
Denied
Legislature
people
grant
or the
can
power? Certainly
not the
Court
Oklahoma,
legislative body,
nor a
Corporation
Commission,
Williams,
(Okl.
Louis
St.
& S. F. R. Co. v.
25 Okl.
P.2d
(1910); Muskogee
1968).