*1 OPALA, J., concurring. OK 104 legal language polite the € Neither MORGAN, Minority Representative Fred the texts offered formal order nor court's of the of Floor Leader House eclipsed nonconcurring justices unveil the al., Petitioners, Representatives, et controversy. reality today's It is a clash compromise-the to reach a wills unable object an immovable confront- interaction of Finance, DAXON, Director of State Tom Each side seems ing the irresistible force. Treasurer, Butkin, State and Robert unwilling utterly agree with the other on Respondents. political blame for the who should bear the legislation the passage of the infirm No. 96613. and how disadvantage (likely to quantum potential of Oklahoma. Supreme Court enactment) from the condemned should flow " allocated. be 4, 2001. Dec. primary today's pro- 12 The focus of ORDER hegemony the State's nouncement is on Original jurisdiction is assumed. We settles, Although the order constitution. standing to petitioners have find that must, infirmity vitiating present text Hendrick v. Wal- bring issue. the tendered serutiny, the court's mes- of the bill under ters, P.2d 1286- entirely to its sage not deaf or oblivious is challenged contains more than The bill additional, important equally rolée-that unconstitutional subject and is therefore one possible, consequen- a preventing, so far as V, §§ 56 art. provisions Const. under government either destruction of tial of the State and 57 of the Constitution disruption by partial of its total shut-down or White, Campbell v. Oklahoma. services. 255,268. rehearing I that at the T3 am. confident in the task of Respon- stage-both sides will assist us to Intervene as 12 The "Motion negative fallout dent," Taylor, cushioning Pro the immediate President filed Stratton Senate, nullity by crafting a today's sentence Tempore of the Oklahoma satisfy warring request that will solution granted. The Intervenor's sensible prevent peo- serious harm to the parties and this case is denied. Court continue they duty-bound to serve. ple are prohibiting prohibition issue 3 Let writ nonconcurring justices' prophecy T4 The any releasing funds to respondents offers us a less-than gloom and doom Bill 1570as to House pursuant likely to unfold prediction of what is realistic Legislature. passed by the 48th Oklahoma stages. The immediate postdecisional ef- {4 THE OF SU- DONE BY ORDER stayed on today's command fect DE- 4TH DAY OF THIS PREME COURT effec- suspend present the writ's motion to CEMBER, 2001. rehearing have parties will on tiveness. opportunity guide the court ample WATT, HARGRAVE,C.J., 15 CONCUR: remedy by carefully explor- reasonably safe (BY HODGES, V.C.J., SEPARATE OPALA ing through the arcana of an unforeshadowed BOUDREAU, WINCHESTER, WRITING), ju- today's constitutional change in course of JJ. Strelecki, et al v. Okla- risprudence. See Commission, 1993OK homa Tax PART; IN IN DISSENTS T6 CONCURS 910,918. (BY PART: SEPARATE KAUGER WRITING), J. J., concurring part KATUGER, - part: dissenting in (JOINS LAVENDER, T7 DISSENT: (BY J.), 1) SUMMERS, petitioners, mem- agree SUMMERS 1 1 I that: WRITING), Representatives, have JJ. SEPARATE of the House of bers *2 2) single viding parties opportunity challenge the to standing; HB violates the 5, §§ subject rule the Okla. Const. rehearing in process-an option the order the art. 3) 57; Tempore Pro the President should stay- which does not exist absent the Court's 4) 1.198, intervene; ing the effectivenessof Rule Oklahoma to the cause be allowed not continued. Rules, should be Supreme Supp.1997, Court 0.8. Ch. 15, App. 1. My concern is that the order automati cally "drop-dead" sets an instantaneous date. {4 Legislature special The continues in Ordinarily, majority of this deci the Court's session.2 Should the Governor to add choose sions are not considered final until the twen questioned funding the issues the filing rehearing ty-day time frame for has age nda,3 possible disruptions the to state expired or the mandate has issued in the payroll contracting procedures pointed or out Here, peculiar proce cause.1 because of the totally in the dissent could be minimized or posture, twenty-day rehearing peri the dural opportunity I eliminated. would afford this stay od does not the effectiveness of the by staying the effectiveness of the order until Original proceedings order. are treated dif ordinary rehearing proceedings could take their 1.198, ferently pursuant to Rule Oklahoma rse.4 cou Rules, Supreme Supp.1997, Court 0.8. Ch. respondents, T5 Because the the Director 15, App. provides pertinent part: 1 which in Treasurer, of State Finance and the State original "In proceedings all other than required payments are to withhold onee the those to review decision Workers' filed, irreparable damage may order is be Compensation impose Court or to bar dis- in done a situation where none need occur. Court, cipline, the decision of this unless it : Therefore, majority I dissent from the order bond, stayed is with or without shall be- only provide to the extent that it does not the opinion come effective when its or order is twenty-day rehearing period. usual filed with the clerk. ..." today's original T3 The effect of order-an SUMMERS, J., Dissenting, joined by proceeding-is upon filing immediate its with LAVENDER, J. the Court Clerk. Because 1.198 results Rule litigants differently in I being treating respectfully these 1 I dissent from the order of norm, suspend unnecessarily departs from the I would the the Court. The rule Court rehearing process proceed-pro- precedent long allow the in the established line See, 1.13, "(1) Supreme Legislature may 1. Rule special Oklahoma Court The called be into Rules, Supp.1997, App. provid- 12 O.S. Ch. by purposes session a written call for such as ing pertinent part; in call, may specifically signed be set out in the "(a) Applications rehearing Petition. and a (%) by two-thirds Senate members the thereof, support brief in or- unless otherwise (%) and two-thirds of the members of the Court, by by petition dered the shall be made Representatives House of it is filed with signed Court, counsel, the and filed with by Tempore the President Pro of the Senate and (20) twenty days the Clerk within date from the Speaker Representatives the of the House of opinion on the the which cause is filed...." jointly who shall issue an order for the conven- original.] [Emphasis ing special the session. original proceedings involving review of a (2) Nothing prevent in this section shall the Compensation decision of Workers' Court calling special Legislature of a session of the discipline, imposing those bar rule is the Governor, provided by the Constitu- same. See, 1.193, Rule Oklahoma Supreme tion the State Oklahoma." Rules, Supp.1997, App. Court 12 O.S. Ch. 1. Special may Legisla- 2. sessions called §6, 3. The Okla. Const. art. 7 provides: ture or Because the Governor. session power ''The Governor shall have to convoke progress, unnecessary it is for the members to Legislature, only, or the Senate on extraor- through required by convene vote two-thirds sessions, dinary extraordinary occasions. At pro- § § art. 27A. The Okla. Const. art. subject upon, except no shall be acted such as vides: the Governor recommend for consider- Legislature regular ''The shall hold annual ses- ation." provided, sions as herein but this shall not prevent calling special sessions of the Legislature by the Governor." 1.13, 4. Rule Rules, Supreme Supp.1997,Ch.App. O0.S. provides: § Okla. 27A Const. art. $1,314,000.00-State Edu- unnecessarily cere- opinions, and prior of its program for a for teachers on immediately cation crisis constitutional ates a state neuro-developmentally based student many contracts payrolls and affecting the differences.(§ 5). learning employees. their agencies and $1,000,000.00-Oklahoma Center for the Forty- Bill No. 1570 of the T2 House *3 of and Technolo- Advancement Science Session, Regular Eighth Legislature, First (§ 10). gy. year's as this circles referred to Bill", $4,914,356.00-Oklahoma Regents one-hundred contains State "Reconciliation 5. 8, 2001, (111) (§ On June Higher eleven sections.1 Education. 11 amends S.B. and of ve of Oklahoma of the State the Governor ap and reduces the amount No. 239 Bill, $28,4837,608.00).. sections 38 and propriated two sections of toed legislature to make stating that failed $500,000.00-Oklahoma Regents State 6. in the two see- referenced appropriations Higher Education for the Fred Jones of tions, signed the Bill. Sections of and he then University of Art at of Museum effective dates of 1570 have stated H.B. No. (§ 14). Oklahoma. September section July 2001 and one $100,000.00-Oklahoma Regents 7. State emergency an clause The act contains 2001. Higher Education for a Native Amer- of passage date after and stating an effective Language for the No- ican Curator Sam Ch. approval. 2001 Okla Sess.Laws History and ble Museum of Natural 109, 110, 1570is in §§ 1112 House Bill No. Art Fred at the Uni- Jones Museum effect at this time. (§ 15). versity of Oklahoma. Bill Today the rules that House $218,700.00-State Board of 8. appro Bill unconstitutional. The No. 1570 is Revolving Reform Fund from Education many expenditures for priates or authorizes support public financial schools. for including departments, (§ 20). dis education.3 Before funds for common $206,897.00-Oklahoma Center for the 9. order, point I first cussing shall the Court's and Technolo- Advancement of Science affected agencies and funds out the exact (§ 21). gy (111) eleven sections of the one-hundred and $726,100.00-Office Finance. of State 10. 1570: H.B. No. (§ 22). $250,000-Office 11. the Governor. following Bill No. 1570 makes House 28). (§ appropriations: $50,000.00-Legislative Bureau. Service 12. public $14,610,942.00-support 1. (§ 24). (§ 1 No. 1570 amends of H.B. schools. $69,198.00-Tax imple- for 13. Commission and reduces the amount H.B. No. 1505 $26,586,268.00). pro- appropriated from federal refund offset mentation (§ 26): gram. $50,000.00-State of Education 2. $100,000.00-Oklahoma Department of Instructional, 14. Cooperative Techno-
for responsibili- (§ 3). contractual Commerce logical Education. particu- (West). payment or for the use for distinct 1. 2001 Okla.Sess.Laws Ch. v. State Bd. demand. Smith ex rel. State lar date of an act 2. I need not address the effective 1266. Equalization, OK 630 P.2d express an effective date that contains both "appropriation" need not be used The term emergency This Court has discussed clause. appropriation. designation part of a lawful George eg., Randels, See, such circumstances. Childers, 228 P. 102 Okla. Edwards Oil Co. 248; Cities Service (1924). language express 473-474 I use Commission, Tax categories, dividing the various No. 1570 in H.B. P.2d 597. particular opinion express on whether a I no "ap- although appropriation the term is an item appropriation designation authori- is the 3. An that item in used to describe propriation'"'is not moneys expenditure public zation of amount, purpose the Bill. stipulation manner $10,097,2833.00-Oklahoma 28. involving Central Oklahoma Eco- ties Historical (§ 28). (§ Development 208). nomic District. Society. 71 amends S.B. No. $150,000.00-Oklahoma Department 15. $200,000.00-Department 29. Public responsibili- for contractual Commerce (§ 76). Safety. involving Eastern Oklahoma Eco- ties $1,514,155.00-Department 30. of Trans- (§ 29). Development District. nomic (§ 80). portation. $50,000.00-Oklahoma Department 16. $28,750.00-State 31. Fire Marshal for an responsibili- Commerce contractual (§ 83). employee. additional involving ties Kiamichi Oklahoma Eco- $200,000.00-Oklahoma Indigent De- (§ 30). Development nomic District. (§ 85). System. fense $1,865,751.00-Oklahoma Depart- $291,600-Oklahoma Supreme Court for (§ ment of Health. 83 amends H.B. No. (§ 86). the District Courts. *4 appropriation and reduces from 34. $120,000.00-Department $1,430,751.00). of Commerce. (§ 97). $179,000.00-Department 18. of Mental 35.
Health and $20,000.00-Department Substance Abuse Services. of Commerce. ' (§ 42). (§ 98). $980,000-Department 36. 19. of Mental $35,000.00-Department of Commerce. (§ 99). Health and Substance Abuse Services. (§ 48 amends HB. No. 1564 and $100,000.00-Department 37. of Commerce. changes language relating pur- to the (§ 100). pose appropriation). $50,000.00-J. 38. M. Davis Memorial Com- $40,000.00-Department 20. of Mental (§ 101). mission. Health and Substance Abuse Services 39. $137,000.00-Will Rogers Memorial (§ 48). specified for contractual services. (§ 102). Commission. 21. $340,278,606-Oklahoma Health Care $25,000.00-Department 40. of Human Ser- (§ Authority. 53 amends HB. No. 1564 (§ 103). vices. appropriated the increases amount $339,078,606.00). from House Bill No. 1570 authorizes the follow- $12,297,805.00-Oklahoma 22. Health Care ing expenditures: (§ Authority. 54 amends H.B. No. 1564 $11,761,626.00by State Board of Edu- 1. appropriated decreases amount sechools.(§ 2). public cation for $17,297,805.00). from $11,761,626.00 by Oklahoma State Re- $9,700,000.00-University Hospitals Au- 28. gents Higher for Education from the (§ thority. 58 amends H.B. No. 1518 Revoly- Scholarship Oklahoma Tuition increasing appropriation from (§ 12). ing Fund. $9,600,000.00) - $11,761,626.00by Oklahoma State Re- 24. $100,000.00-Department of Rehabilita- gents Higher for Education from the (§ 61). tion Services Higher Capital Revolving $23,082.00-Office 25. of Juvenile Affairs (§ 18). Fund. for contractual services from Duncan $2,5000,000.00by The Commissionersof (§ 63). Community Intervention Center. the Land Office from the Public Build- $24,021,961.00-Department 26. Agricul- (§ 18). ing Fund and the Greer Fund. (§ 68 ture amends H.B. No. 1529 in- $23,428,844.00 Oklahoma Health creasing appropriation from $21,521,961.00). Authority Care from the Tobacco Set- (§ tlement Fund 55 amends H.B. No. $5,000,000.00-Department Agricul- 1564 and increases the authorization Special from ture Cash Fund of State $19,628,344.00). (§ Treasury 69 amends H.B. No. 1529 $65,000.00 by Department of Public decreasing appropriation $7,500,000.00). Safety payment for the lease No. 1570 transfers funds Complex House Bill for Industrial Clinton/Sherman specified and accounts: ending year June the fiscal (§ by chang- No. 1549 H.B. 77 amends $300,000.00 Elec- transferred year). Fi- by Director of State ing the date of tion Board (§ 81). nance. $171,811.00 Department of Public $544,900.00 transferred to J.D. of Tests for Aleohol Safety for Board Handicapped McCarty Chil- Center (§ H.B. amends Drug Influence. Revolving Fund from J.D. dren changing the amount by both No. 1549 Developmentally McCarty Center expenditure). year for the and fiscal (§ 82). Children. Disabled $3,500,000.00 by Department of Public $250,000.00 to the Tobacco transferred revolving fund for Safety from a Revolving and Prevention Cessation equipping of vehicles. purchase Department the State Fund from (§ by increas- H.B. No. 1549 94 amends (§ 86). Health. amount, year changing fiscal ing $600,000.00 to the Oklahoma transferred language). other from De- Department of Corrections Health and Sub- partment of Mental apportions the follow- Bill No. 1570 House (§ 44) Abuse Services. stance ing amounts: $700,000.00 transferred to the Oklahoma *5 from De- Department of Corrections $563,562.00 Coopera- to School 1. Small and partment of Mental Health Sub- (§ and H.B. No. 1505 tives. amends (§ 45) from Abuse Services. apportioned stance the amount increases $513,562.00). $2,000,000.00-transferred Public to the by Depart- RevolvingFund Transit $250,000.00 telecommunica- Up for (§ Transportation. 81 amends ment of by purposes determined tions and other 249 and increases the amount S.B. No. (§ 4). of Education. Board State $1,5000,000.00). from transferred $55,852.00 District for School Chickasha for Brooks School at the Jane students budgets Bill No. 1570 set House and/or (§ 4). the Deaf. depart- employees for certain number of agencies: ments and $53,878.00 for the Oklahoma Science (§ 4). Engineering Fair. 1. Oklahoma School and and of Mathematics (§§ 7, amends H.B. No. 1505 Sciences. $405,870.00 System State for Oklahoma total amount from increases a and implementing Higher Education for $7,827,291.00 full- $7,197,291.00 curriculum state- telecommunications 75). employees from 78 to time 4). (§ wide. Department of Career Oklahoma $300,000.00 independent school dis- (§ amends Technology Education. incentive meeting a small school tricts salary and increases H.B. No. 1505 (§ 4). requirements. grant $105,000.00). $94,000.00 to from $40,000.00 non-profit arts center for to a of Private Vocational Oklahoma Devel- Professional Special Educator (§ H.B. 1529 and 17 amends Schools. (§ 4). Program. opment budget item increases $500,000.00 $184,760). cervical can- $174,760.00 to for breast sereenings amount cer detection for Teacher Oklahoma Commission 1564 to appropriated in H.B. No. State (§ H.B. 1505 19 amends Preparation. (§ 39). Department of Health. $6,858, increasing amount from a total $8,868,522.00). 097.00 to $50,000.00 abstinence education for teen Protection Commis- Merit in H.B. No. Oklahoma appropriated from amount (§ 222 and increas- amends S.B. sion. Department of Health. 1564 to State items). (§ 40). budgeted of several es amounts (§ (§ 6. Attorneys Tax Commission. District Council by changing amends H.B. No. 1545 bud- increasing amends S.B. No. amount Services). amounts). budgeted Taxpayer geted (§ Department of Health 34 22. Ethics Commission (§ 98 amends S.B. H.B. 1518 and amends No. decreases changing No. budgeted items, § budget amounts). certain 85 amends decreasing H.B. No. 1518 and increas- budget
ing adding certain items and year Bill House No. 1570 lifts fiscal limita- services). entities for contractual (§ 57) appropriations: tions on certain Department of Mental Health and Sub- Appropriations made Sections 78 (§ stance Abuse Services. 46 amends 79, 81, 82, through 84, 85, 94, 95, 98, and increasing and H.B. No. 1518 decreas- 101 of Bill House No. 1564 are made avail- amounts). ing certain expenditure able for encumbrance and on Oklahoma Commission Children thirty months from March 2001. Those (§ Youth 52 amends S.B. No. 280 H.B. sections of No. 1564 and the amounts) increasing budgeted certain they involve are as follows: (§ Authority 10. Oklahoma Health Care § 73 Oklahoma Commission on Chil- 1518, budgets amends H.B. No. funds in dren and Youth categories and amounts and increases §§ Handicapped 75 Office of Con- employees). full-time cerns (§ 11. Office of Juvenile Affairs 60 amends § Rights 76 Oklahoma Human Com- 285) S.B. No. mission Department of Rehabilitation Services 77, 79, §§ Department of Human Ser- (§ 62 amends Ch. vices 17). § Department § 78 of Human Services 18. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation De- *6 (vetoed Governor) by the (§§ 65, 66, partment 67 amends H.B. § Department 82 of Rehabilitation 1535). No. Services (§ 14. Oklahoma Water Resource Board 70 § 84 Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commis- 225) amends No. S.B. sion (§ Society 15. Oklahoma Historical 72 § 85 Officeof Juvenile Affairs S, 208). B. amends No. §§ University Hospitals Authority 95 Supreme 16. Oklahoma Court for District (§ Courts, by 87 amends H.B. No. 1539 § 101 Oklahoma Health Care Au- increasing budget operations for court thority Courts)
for District House Bill No. 1570 17. amends: also Supreme Oklahoma Court for District (§ Courts, by 88 amends H.B. No. 1589 § 1. 70 involving 0.S.1991 16-114 textbook changing the schedule for which certain allocation of requiring funds and the employees compensated). are State Board of to make its 18. Supreme Oklahoma year Court for District determination each instead (§ Courts, by year H.B. No. amends 1997-1998 and each thereafter. (§ 6). increasing the number of full-time em- Courts). ployees of the District 0.8.8upp.2000 § involving 3206.5
19. (§ Supreme Oklahoma Regents 90 states Oklahoma Higher State for H.B. No. amends but no Education and maximum value of lease amendment). change by is shown transactions, of, per- useful life (§ 16). property. sonal (§ 20. Attorney General by amends decreasing O0.8.Supp.2000 § H.B. No. 1545 involving 1-107.1 budgeted). the total (§ 87). Programs. costs for Eldercare Sys- Information the Oklahoma Court involving medications HB. No. 1518 4. (§ 84). tem. Mental by Department of purchased Abuse Services. Health Substance salary for the chief execu- Changes the 5. 47). (§ tive officer of the Oklahoma Accountan- 817). (§ by cy 95 amends S.B. No. § extend- 0.8.S8upp.2000 8-101.4 48A 5. 30, 2001 to June ing June salary from Changes for the Director of 6. Oversight (§ Panel for the the Transition Department of Corrections. 1556). of Eastern State
Deinstitutionalization H.B. amends No. (§ 49). Hospital. Department of 7. Authorizes the Central by § 0.8.Supp.2000 specified 3-101.5 extend- tracts of 48A to sell two 6. Services 96). (§ property. real 830,2001 to ing from June June Oversight Legislative Commit- the Joint specified out-of- Reimbursement for 8. Hospital Tran- tee on the Eastern expenses by employees of travel 50). (§ sition. Forestry Depart- Division of the involving § (§ 3-701 O.S8.Supp.2000 amends Agriculture. 7. 48A ment 1116). H.B. No. surgical of individuals care medical custody Department Budgetary employee limitations (§ 51). Corrections. imposed upon agencies law otherwise involving § apply to state made 0.S.S8upp.2000 shall not 7302-8.6 appropriations and transfers made authority of the Office contractual (§ 106). act. (§ 64). Juvenile Affairs. appropriations made H.B. 10. Authorizes involving § Ch. 9. 0.8.L.2000 budgeted specified No. 1570 to be by the Council on purchase of facilities 107). years.(§ fiscal Train- Education and Law Enforcement (§ 78). ing. sum, below, H.B. No. as I discuss legislative other bills involvingpay- § amends several 0.$.8upp.2000 382.4 10. 57 session, and those the same and members ments to Chair funds, em- involve number of (§ 75). amendments and Parole Board. Pardon cases, all the salaries of ployees, and some repealed by § HB. No. was No. particular agencies. H.B. employees of § 1570. Section 88 108 of H.B. No. authoriza- appropriations, new 1570 also has $40,000.00 to a H.B. No. 1505 awarded funds to .cer- expenditures, transfers tions 108). (§ nonprofit arts center. accounts, new law on non- and makes tain *7 budget topics. provi- contains other Bill No. 1570 House
sions: Single-Subject Rule The providing for reimbursement 1. A section every act states that T4 Our Constitution according Travel Reim- to the State only one Legislature must embrace Act, does not but the section bursement appropria- general a subject, unless the act is existing or law state that it amends bill, adopt- bill, a generalrevenue or bill tion (§ 74). it is codified. state where code, of statutes. ing digest, or revision a Safety may Department 2. The Public or and titlee-Revival Subjects § 57. Academy during fiscal have a Patrol of inval- by reference-Extent amendment thirty year consisting of no fewer than idity . (§ 79). cadets. Legislature em- Every of the shall act to Authorizing Fire Marshal the State subject, be clear- one which shall brace but Engineer. Protection employ one Fire title, except general ly 'expressed in its (§ 82). bills, bills, general revenue appropriation code, digest, revi- adopting or a and and bills § of Title 20 4. Creates new statutes; shall be re- and no law Supreme sion requires the vived, amended, provisions thereof or the accounting system for implement an conferred, by general appropriation extended or reference to its bill violates Art. 5 § only; title but so much thereof as is re-
vived, amended, extended, or conferred 15 I also note that the Bill authorizes the published shall be re-enacted and at employ State Fire Marshal one Fire Pro- Provided, length: any subject if That be (§ 82), Engineer tection and such would vio- any contrary provi- embraced act to the § late Art. 5 56 if H.B. No. 1570 were char- section, sions of such act shall be void general appropriation acterized as a bill. only much the laws not as to so Additionally, $28,750.00 appropriates the Bill expressed be in the title thereof. to the Fire Marshal for an additional § (§ Okla. Const. Art. 5 employee 88), appropriation if and employee § for the authorized in then exceptions H.B. Does No. 1570 fit one of the § Art. provision. 56 is violated such single-subject general to the it a rule? Is bill, bill, appropriation general or a revenue general 16 Neither is H.B. No. 1570 a code, adopting digest, bill a or revision of revenue bill. Revenue bills are those laws The OklahomaConstitutiondi- . principal object raising is the reve- statutes? whose appropriation "general" ap- vides bills into Dazon, levy nue Calvey and which taxes. propriation "separate" appropria- bills 17, §14, 2000 OK 997 P.2d 170. Fur- } tion bills ther, code, adopt H.B. No. 1570 does not § appropriation digest, Thus, 56. General bills-Sala or revision of statutes. H.B. ries-Separate appropriation bills No. 1570 exceptions does not fall within the § to Okla. Const. Art. 5 57. general appropriation
The
bill shall em-
nothing
appropriations
brace
but
for the
T7 The Bill itself divides its sections into
expenses
executive, legislative,
of the
"Education",
categories:
different
"General
judicial departments
State,
of the
and for Government",
Services",
"Health and Social
public
salary
interest on the
debt. The
Services",
"Human
"Natural Resources and
State,
employee
any
no officer or
of the
or
Regulatory",
Safety
and "Public
and Judicia-
thereof,
subdivision
shall
be increased
ry". Respondents argue
Bill
that the
never-
bill,
any appropriation
such
nor shall
single subject
theless embraces the
of "ad-
any
made therein for
such officer or em-
justments
agencies
appropriations"
ployee,
employment
unless his
"stray
with additional
provisions"
substantive
salary,
amount of his
shall have been al-
appropriations.
that are not
In Johnson v.
ready provided
ap-
law. All other
Walters,
819 P.2d
it was
propriations
by separate
shall be made
by party
provisions
asserted
that the
there-
bills,
embracing
subject.
each
but one
single subject
gov-
embraced the
of "state
ernment," and
§
Okla.
we said that such a broad
Const. Art. 5
category
proper.
Campbell
was not
House Bill No. 1570
law other than
creates
White,
we said
appropriations
executive,
expenses
that if
multiple provisions,
a bill contains
"the
legislative,
judicial departments
provisions
common, closely
must
reflect a
State,
public
and for interest on the
debt.
akin theme
purpose."
Id.
695
argue
the unconstitu-
Respondents
that
9
one
is
"amendments"
"adjustments"
If
compila-
by respon
by the decennial
tionality is cured
implied
subject, as
conceivably
compilation
amend
The decennial
dents,
could
of statutes.
one bill
tion
then
Statutes, 2001,
approved
agency
was
every
of Oklahoma
every appropriation
2001,
9,
amendments.
1819,
April
innumerable
virtually
approved
Bill No.
with
House
judicial con
stating
request
that
is a
emergency clause
respondents
with an
What
Constitution
of the Oklahoma
passage
struction
and after its
effect from
would take
single-subject
40,
negating
result
Ch.
would
approval. 2001 Okla.
and
approve
an
such
cannot
The Court
rule.
(West).
§ 11
"This
the Constitution:
interpretation
rely upon
v.
Respondents
Allen
1 10
intolerant
duty-bound to be
Bd. Trustees Oklahoma
ex.rel.
Uniform
indirectly that
attempt
to do
legislature's
Judges,
and
System Justices
Retirement
directly prohibits."
the constitution
which
99,
argument
1802. This
1988 OK
166,
McClain,
P.2d
844
Lepak
dissenting opinion
raised
was also
also,
v. Oklahoma
852,
Rehermam
See
Campbell
explanation
Campbell. See
12,
Board,
679
1984
Resources
Water
255, 268, 274,
89,
White,
856
Bill No. 1570
1296,
House
1301-1302.
Lavender,
dissenting,
joined
(Opala, J.
the Okla
rule of
single-subject
violates
V.C.J.),
in title and
stating that a defect
Walters, su
Johnson
homa Constitution.
White,
single-subject com
supra.
Campbellv.
noncompliance with
and
pra,
22,
May
approved
Bill No. 217 was
approval.
Senate
passage and
date after
an effective
1, 2001,
(West).
2001,
July
and
§ 41
date of
Ch. 217
stated an effective
2001 Okla.Sess.Laws
5,
approved June
stating
was
emergency
No. 1529
an effec-
House Bill
clause
contained an
an
approval.
vetoed,
contained
passage
2001 Okla.
two sections
date after
and
2001, with
tive
after
stating
date
emergency
an effective
clause
15,
(West).
§§
16
Ch. 226
Sess.Laws
that certain
approval, and stated
passage and
22,
approved May
No. 222 was
Senate Bill
1,
July
2001. 2001 Okla.
were effective
sections
1, 2001,
2001,
July
and
an effective date
stated
28,
(West).
§§
Ch. 417
29
Sess.Laws
stating
emergency
an effec-
clause
an
contained
31,
May
approved
1535 was
Bill No.
House
passage
approval. 2001 Okla.
and
tive date after
2001,
stating
emergency
an
clause
an
contained
9,
(West).
§§
10
Ch. 227
Sess.Laws
passage
approval, and
and
date after
effective
31,
May
approved
was
Bill No. 225
Senate
1,
July
date of
an effective
stated
2001
1, 2001 and
effective date of
2001, states an
July
17,
(West).
§§
18
Ch. 290
Okla.Sess.Laws
stating
emergency
an effective
clause
contains an
31,
approved May
No. 1539 was
House Bill
passage
approval.
2001 Okla.
and
date after
are effective
sections
states
2001,
specified
22,
(West).
§§
23
Ch. 301
Sess.Laws
1, 2001,
emergency clause
July
contains an
and
22,
May
approved
was
Bill No. 230
Senate
ap-
passage and
stating
date after
an effective
2001,
September
an effective date of
and stated
§§ 24,
Ch. 291
Laws,
2001 Okla. Sess.
proval.
§
1,
228
15
Ch.
Okla. Sess.Laws
(West).
2001
8,
(West).
approved
was
June
Bill No. 1545
House
2001,
1,
31,
2001,
July
May
approved
date of
an effective
states
239 was
Senale Bill No.
stating
emergency
an effective
clause
contains an
1,
effective date
states an
July
2001,
approval.
Oka.
stating
emergency
passage and
an effective
clause
after
an
date
contains
20,
(West).
Laws,
§§
Ch. 432
Sess.
approval.
2001 Okla.
passage and
date after
21,
May
approved
1549 was
House Bill No.
16,
(West).
§§
Ch. 302.
Sess.Laws
stating
emergency clause
an
2001 and coniains
24,
May
approved
242 was
Senate Bill No.
passage
approval.
after
an effective date
1,
2001 and
effective date
2001, states
July
an
(West).
§ 31
Laws, Ch. 218
Sess.
2001 Okla.
stating
effective
emergency
an
clause
contains an
May
approved
was
Bill No. 1556
House
approval.
Okla.
passage and
date after
stating
emergency clause
contains an
(West).
§§
Ch.
Sess.Laws
approval.
passage and
effective date after
an
approved June
No. 249
Bill
was
Senate
(West).
Laws,
§
Ch.
2001 Okla. Sess.
1, 2001,
July
date of
states an effective
approved
was
March
Bill No. 1564
House
stating
effective
emergency
an
clause
contains
1, 2001,
July
date of
with a stated effective
approval.
2001 Okla.
passage and
date after
by the Gover-
vetoed
certain sections
and with
(West).
§§
Ch. 345
Sess.Laws
Laws,
(West).
§ 171
Ch. 6
Okla. Sess.
nor. 2001
approved June
317 was
Bill No.
Senate
approved June
203 was
Senate Bill No.
*9
2001,
1,
2001,
July
and
date of
an effective
states
2001, and
1,
date
an effective
2001,
July
states
stating an effective
emergency clause
contains an
stating
emergency
an effective
clause
contains an
approval.
2001 Okla.
passage and
date after
approval.
2001 Oka.
passage and
after
date
2,
(West).
§§
.
Ch. 424
Sess.Laws
(West).
§§ 14, Ch. 342
Sess.Laws
objections
mand are
to the
of an
form
act
ees
Sys
Oklahoma
Retirement
Uniform
content,
than to its
rather
substance or
and a
99,
Judges,
tem Justices and
1988 OK
in title is cured
in
defect
inclusion
the
1802, 1806, (emphasis.
original).
in
In
compilation.
decennial
Allen the Court
Legislature approved
Allen the
the decennial
explained
that
constitutional defect
in an
compilation by
separate
legislative
act.
was
subsequent
enactment's
title
cured
(West).
1982 Okla Sess.Laws Ch. 356
But
compila
inclusion of the act
the decennial
respondents
today's
point
case do not
to
statutes. Id.
tion of the
769 P.2d at
approval
an
compilation by
of the decennial
Tulsa,
City
2,
See also McNeill v.
Supreme
Legislature.
the
Court or the
Re
20,
329, 334,
explanation
and the
spondent's argument attempting to constitu
of Allen.
tionally rehabilitate H.B. No. 1570 on the
yet printed
apply
approved
basis of a
11 Allen does not
to this
and
controver
decennial
sy
compilation
Adoption
apply
at this time.
does not
here.
decennial
requires approval
compilation
statutes
of that
sum,
agree
I
I
with the Court
that
by the Justices of the Oklahoma Supreme H.B. No. 1570violates the Oklahoma Consti-
§§
Indeed,
Court.
178.5
0.8.1991
However,
tution.
I
strenuously
must
dis-
requirement
H.B. No. 1819 continues that
agree with how
disposes
the Court
of this
amending
these sections.
2001 Okla.
controversy.
(West).
6,7
§§
Sess.Laws Ch.
In Allen
the defective
act of 1981 was cured
The Relief Granted
retroactively "when that
recompila
decennial
[
adopted by
Legislature
tion was
Today
on June
prohibition
Court issues a writ of
2, 1988." Allen v. State ex rel. Bd. Trust
preventing respondents
6
from re
§
75 0.8.1991
177:
elections,
acts,
relating
special
validating
to
and
issues,
relating
Approval by
authorizing
laws
to
Supreme
pend-
or
bond
Court
ing proceedings,
finally printing
existing rights
Before
the Oklahoma
and reme-
Statutes
dies,
Publishing Company
present
running
West
shall
statutes of
its
limitations
and in
manuscript
approval
force at
of said Statutes to
the time of the
the Justices of the
of this act shall
Oklahoma,
Supreme
respects
Court of the State
continue and
exist in all
as if this act
approval
shall secure the
the Justices of the
had
not been
Provided,
further,
that
this
passed.
Supreme
compliance
Court as to form and as to
act shall
change,
not be construed
alter,
to
im-
divest,
pair,
disparage,
any way
vest or
or in
with the
act;
of this
further,
provisions
provided,
any right
States,
affect
or interest
in the United
Justices of the
Court
also,
shall
Supreme
approving
manuscript,
certify
after
said
said
the State of Oklahoma,
of the Five Civilized
any
accuracy, completeness
Statutes as to
Tribes,
and cor-
or other Tribes or Nations of Indians
rectness.
within the State
Oklahoma,
nor shall
the same
O.$.1991 §
178:
repeal any
be construed to
Legislature
act
Adoption
general
public laws-Savings
as
of the State of
subsequent
Oklahoma enacted
to
clause
adjournment
Regular
of the First
Session of
prepared by
Forty-third
Statutes
Legislature
West
of the State of OkKla-
(6)
Publishing Company and in six
volumes
homa.
above
for, after
the same
shall have
provided
approved by
been
Supreme
the Justices of the
6. The Court, without
comment,
recasts
the re-
quest
of the State of Oklahoma as hereinabove
prohibition.
relief
that of
Prohibi-
provided,
provided
shall be as
in Section 179
proper
is
tion
not the
writ for this case. Prohibi-
title,
hereby adopted
general
and are
as the
only
tion will lie
where an inferior court or
public
laws of the State of
acting
judicial
Oklahoma and the
capacity
officer is
exercising
in a
Oklahoma,
judicial
official Statutes
quasijudicial
as to
power
granted by
or
not
making
law or
all
ap-
an unauthorized or excessive
laws therein
contained.
Provided,
however,
repeal
that this act
plication
judicial
shall not be construed to
or in
force. Southwestern Bell
any' way
modify any special
Commission,
affect
Telephone
or
Corp.
or local
Co. v. Oklahoma
698 money Const., X, "No paid shall ever be
12
out of the
Article
28
Okla.
Section
pertinent part:
in
provides
treasury
State,
of
any
nor
of its
funds,
any
nor
of the funds under its
"The state shall never create or autho-
management except
pursuance
in
an
any
rize the creation of
debt or obli-
*
appropriation by
(Emphasis
law*
*."
deficit,
gation,
pay any
or
fund or
added)
state,
any
against
department,
the
or
Subject
T
qualifications
to the
hereinaf
thereof,
ageney
regardless
institution or
discussed,
V,
ter
Article
Section 55 is a
money
or the
of its form
source of
from
self-executing [Betts v. Commissioners
paid, except
pro-
to be
which
as is
64,
(1910)
Office,
Land
27 Okl.
therefore
in the Webster
issued
writ was not
Thurs
A.M.
at 12:01 o'clock
come effective
greatly dis-
have
it would
case because
February
1979."
day,
See,
county.
tax rolls of
turbed the
Tulsa
also,
Board
case of Excise
{18
opinions are consistent
three
These
City
County v.
holding
opinions expressly
many
our
with
Tulsa, 1937,
180 Okl.
if
extraordinary
will be denied
relief
awarding or
harm than
held that
cause more
it was
relief would
wherein
such
mandamus,
exer-
courts
denying writs of
applied to
corrects,
this rule has been
governed
and are
judicial discretion
cise
well as
addressing public funds as
opinions
necessary
proper
what seems
construing
Constitution.
the Oklahoma
those
Board,
294;
instance,
36 Okl.
done,
particular
128 P.
State v.
in the
for the
Crouch,
915;
justice,
31 Okl.
Higgins
P.
attainment
exercise
Brown,
may, in view of the
20 Okl.
9.9. Judicial Judicial ofof policy policy 144,144, 147;147; HickeyHickey T4,T4, LynnLynn v.v. McDaneld McDaneld 2020 P.3dP.3d retroactive- retroactive- rulerule willwill extent, extent, aa newnew whatwhat operate operate Inc., Inc., Dodge, HickeyHickey Dodge, LynnLynn 19991999 ly.ly. McDaneld v.v. McDaneld 252,252, 979979 P.2dP.2d Dodge, Dodge, 30,30, 112,112, OKOK Inc., Inc., 19991999 257;257; Oklahoma v.v. Oklahoma Acc.Acc. Ins. Ins. Co.Co. SeeSee andand 252,252, P.2dP.2d 257.257. GlobeGlobe LifeLife 30,30, 22,22, Indepen- Indepen- n.n. 979979 OKOK 43,43, Clark,Clark, n.n. 19991999 OKOK v.v. Institute Finance Institute Finance dentdent 1322, 1322, 913913 P.2dP.2d 39,39, OKOK Commission, Commission, 19961996 TaxTax (discussed 854,854, (discussed 45,45, 845,845, ofof absence thethe absence 990990 P.2dP.2d P.2dP.2d Hughes, Hughes, 21,21, OKOK 912912 v.v. 19961996 Bushert Bushert 1329; 1329; part); part); application, application, inin "inequity" "inequity" inin retroactive retroactive Holcomb, Holcomb, 19951995 OKOK v.v. 340;340; McMillian McMillian 334,334, 335,335, TulsaTulsa Independent Independent Dist.Dist. No.No. 11 ClayClay School School v.v. ofof TrustTrust 1037; 1037; Resolution Resolution 1034, 1034, Corp.Corp. P.2dP.2d 117,117, 907907 294,294, 13,13, 307-308 307-308 County, County, 935935 P.2dP.2d OKOK BrownBrown 807,807, 819;819; 68,68, 901901 P.2dP.2d 19951995 OKOK Grant,Grant, v.v. discussed); discussed); Tay-Tay- (reliance (reliance priorprior parties parties lawlaw onon ofof Association, Association, 19941994 OKOK Country Country v.v. Green.Green. Softball Softball Companies, Companies, OKOK GroupGroup Ins. Ins. v.v. lorlor ChubbChubb ofof v.v. Co.,Co., OilOil Inc. Inc. 853;853; Schulte Schulte 851,851, P.2dP.2d 124,124, 884884 (discussed (discussed unreasonable unreasonable $10$10 806,806, $74$74 P.2dP.2d 47,47, 103,103, OKOK Commussion, Commussion, Oklahoma TaxTax Oklahoma impression impression byby partyparty inin first first prejudice prejudice suffered suffered 65,65, 73;73; Dept.Dept. ManningManning rel.rel. v.v. StateState exex P.2dP.2d ofof application). application). prospective prospective grounds grounds forfor casecase asas 667,667, $76$76 62,62, 673.673. Safety, Safety, P.2dP.2d 19941994OKOK Public Public Commission, Commission, 19931993 TaxTax Oklahoma v.v. Oklahoma Strelecki SeeSee Strelecki (discussing, (discussing, 912-916, 910,910, 912-916, 122,122, 872872 P.2dP.2d OKOK See,See, CityCity exex rel.rel. CityCity v.v. StateState eg.,eg., Oklahoma Oklahoma 10.10. ofof 97,97, U.S.U.S. 9292 S.Ct.S.Ct. Huson, Huson, v.v. OilOil Co.Co. Chevron Chevron 16,16, Labor, Labor, 107,107, Dept.Dept. 19951995 OKOK Oklahoma Oklahoma ofof andand [1971], [1971], 349,349, subsequent subsequent LEd.2d 3030 LEd.2d 26,26, opinion opinion onon rehear- rehear- (supplemental (supplemental Court), Court), 32-33 32-33 P.2dP.2d Supreme Supreme andand opinions opinions thethe U.S.U.S. fromfrom Strelecki, Strelecki, ing). ing). prospec- prospec- rulings makingmaking rulings opinions opinions since since REPORTER, REPORTER, OK.OK. 4949 PACIFIC PACIFIC 3d3d SERIES SERIES parties parties "rely" "rely" onon thethe effect effect ourour writwrit willwill havehave onon thethe validity validity Officials Officials onon thethe ofof statutes. statutes. byby purse. public purse. public Id.Id. person uponupon person reliance TheThe actact ofof reliance aa thethe justification justification conduct conduct ofof others others asas that forfor that point point II mustmust outout that that thethe amount amount ofof person's person's conduct conduct ofof hishis oror herher affairs affairs isis aa appropriations appropriations byby struck struck downdown thethe CourtCourt willwill jurisprudence." equity jurisprudence." equity doctrine ofof doctrine StateState of-of- likely likely necessitate necessitate corrective corrective action action onon thethe ficials, ficials, employees, employees, statestate andand contractors contractors do-do- partsparts Legislature Legislature ofof thethe andand thethe Governor. Governor.
inging
thethe
uponupon
business withwith
business
relied
StateState havehave relied
Intervenor's motionmotion
Intervenor's
points
points
continuance
forfor continuance
presumed
presumed constitutionality
constitutionality
thethe
ofof H.B.H.B. No.No.
outout
that "Petitioners
"Petitioners
that
conceded that
conceded
thisthis
1570. InIn
1570.
litigation
litigation
'may'may
sumsum whether
whether wewe
manymany
examine thisthis casecase
examine
worthyworthy
affect
affect
statestate
rulings
"prospective rulings
"prospective
agencies
agencies
under
under
jurisprudence"
jurisprudence"
programs'"
programs'"
2,2,
oror
andand
p.p.
Mtn.Mtn. atat
quoting,
quoting,
9,9,
according
according toto
extraordinary
extraordinary
emphasis
emphasis
thethe elements
elements ofof
Peturs' BriefBrief atat
Peturs'
added.
added.
writs,"writs,"
byby
groups
groups
reliance
reliance
these
these
people
people
ofof
IfIf thisthis CourtCourt werewere toto
argument
argument
hearhear oraloral
II
Respondents
Respondents
wouldwould askask
ButkinButkin
andand DaxonDaxon
toto
potential
potential
andand
thethe
toto
funding
funding
statestate
confusion
confusion
explain
explain thethe effect
effect
stopping
stopping
ofof
thethe transfer
transfer ofof
proper
proper
areare
considerations
considerations forfor thisthis CourtCourt
dollars,
dollars,
these ofof
these
inquire
inquire
andand
whether
whether
thethe
judicial
crafting judicial
crafting
whenwhen
relief. ThisThis CourtCourt hashas
relief.
requested
requested
action
action
ofof thethe
inject
inject
CourtCourt wouldwould
recognized
recognized
opinion
opinion
alsoalso
that whenwhen itsits
that
involves
involves
uncertainty
uncertainty
confusion oror
confusion
toto thethe fiscal
affairs
fiscal affairs
rights
rights heldheld under
under
lawlaw
opinion
opinion
current
current
andand thethe
ofof thethe StateState ofof Oklahoma.
Oklahoma. IfIf thethe answer
answer
requires
requires
legislative
legislative
aa
response,
response,
opin-
opin-
thenthen anan
werewere
Petitioners,
Petitioners,
affirmative
affirmative II wouldwould askask
asas
prospective
prospective
ionion withwith
effect
effect allows
allows those
those af-af-
representatives,
representatives,
elected
elected
forfor
input
input
their
their
onon
fected
fected toto order
order their
their affairs.
affairs. Vanderpool
Vanderpool v.v.
howhow thethe resultant
resultant fiscal
fiscal confusion
confusion could
could bebe
State,
State,
82,82,
OKOK 672672
P.2dP.2d 1158.
1158. TheThe CourtCourt
byby
alleviated
alleviated oror eliminated
eliminated
thethe Court.Court.
departs
today departs
today
prac-prac-
fromfrom thisthis time-honored
time-honored
TheThe OrderOrder ofof
thethe CourtCourt allows
allows Strat-Strat-
petitioners
petitioners
tice. Neither
tice.
Neither thethe
nornor thethe CourtCourt
Taylor,
Taylor,
tonton
anyany
Tempore
Tempore
President
President
opinion
opinion
ProPro
citescites toto
ofof thethe
wherewhere thisthis CourtCourt hashas
Senate,
Senate,
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
byby
StateState
toto intervene
intervene inin thisthis
appropri-
appropri-
itsits writwrit voided
voided aa current
current
statestate
partpart
HisHis affidavit
affidavit isis
ofof thethe record
record inin
awayaway
ationation andand snatched
funds
snatched funds
'case.
'case.
'case.
fromfrom cur-cur-
*15
proceeding.
proceeding.
thisthis
ThatThat affidavit
affidavit states
that
states that
operations.
government operations.
government
rent
rent statestate
hehe andand thethe Speaker
Speaker
Repre-
Repre-
ofof thethe HouseHouse ofof
121121 AsAs aa
topic,
topic,
final
final notenote onon thisthis
thisthis
sentatives "asked
sentatives
"asked thethe Governor
Governor toto addadd toto hishis
CourtCourt hashas notnot explored
explored
potential
potential
otherother
types
types
callcall forfor thethe
special
special
current
current
session
session consider-
consider-
ofof relief
relief forfor
controversy.
controversy.
thisthis
example,
example,
ForFor
legislation
legislation
ationation ofof
toto
possible
anyany possible
correct
correct
stayed
stayed
thisthis CourtCourt hashas
issuance
issuance ofof anan extraor-
extraor-
1570",
1570",
inin
defects
defects
HouseHouse BillBill
request
request
andand thisthis
dinary
dinary
purpose
purpose
writwrit forfor
allowing
allowing
thethe
ofof
offi-offi-
byby
waswas mademade
letter
letter delivered
delivered toto thethe Gover-Gover-
comply
comply
cialscials toto
opinion
opinion
withwith anan
ofof thethe Court:Court: nor,nor, andand thethe Governor
Governor refused.
refused. TheThe affidavit
affidavit
"Being
"Being confident
confident
that
that
obeyobey
defendants willwill
defendants
further
further states
states that
that thethe "Governor
"Governor
Repre-
Repre-
andand
thethe directions
directions ofof
out,out,
thisthis court
court asas above
above setset
Morgan,
Morgan,
sentative FredFred
sentative
MinorityMinority
HouseHouse
wewe willwill
peremptory
peremptory
withhold thethe
withhold
writwrit atat thisthis
FloorFloor Leader
Leader
aa
case,
case,
andand
Petitioner
Petitioner
inin thisthis
time."
time."
Phelps,
Phelps,
152,152,
Rountree
Rountree
19481948 OKOK
havehave
publicly
publicly
indicated
indicated
theythey
that
that
v.v.
wantwant
thisthis
978,978,
doubt,
doubt,
P.2dP.2d
977.977. NoNo
thethe Court's
Court's action
action isis
byby
casecase
Supreme Court,Court,
Supreme
decided
decided
thethe
rather
rather
due,due,
part,part,
inin
input
input
toto thethe lacklack ofof
fromfrom thethe
thanthan addressing
addressing
special
special
thethe issue
issue inin
session."
session."
eg.,eg.,
Extraordinary
Extraordinary
See,See,
11.11.
declaratory
declaratory
WatersWaters v.v. Stevens,
governed
governed
Stevens,
19471947 OKOK
relief isis alsoalso
relief
4,4, 176176
808,808,
P.2dP.2d
811-812;
811-812; Luschen
Luschen v.v. Stanton,
byby equitable
equitable principles.
principles. SeeSee EthicsEthics Commission
Stanton,
19431943 OKOK
Commission
177,177, 137137 P.2d4P.2d4 567,567, 569.569. Accord,
Accord, Russell
Russell v.v. BoardBoard
v.v. Cullison,
Cullison,
19931993 OKOK 37,37, 850850 P.2dP.2d 1069,
1069, wherewhere
Commissioners,
Commissioners,
CarterCarter
County
County
County,
County,
ofof
explained
explained
wewe
origins
equitable origins
equitable
thethe
declaratory
declaratory
ofof
80,80,
492,492, 503,503, (elements
(elements
OKOK
952952 P.2dP.2d
promis-
promis-
ofof
relief,
relief, citing
citing
preventative
preventative
thethe
writswrits atat common
common
sorysory
discussed).
discussed).
estoppel
estoppel
law,
law,
remedy
equitable remedy
equitable
timet,
timet,
thethe
quiaquia
ofof aa billbill
opinion
opinion
andand toto thethe
Equip.
Equip.
Automotive
inin Automotive
v.v. TricoTrico
prohibition
12. A
only
writ of
will lie
in cases of
292,292, 294,294,
Corp.,Corp.,
(W.D.N.Y.
(W.D.N.Y.
Prod.Prod.
F.Supp.
F.Supp.
necessity.
manifest
granted
It will not be
where
1935),
1935),
explanation
explanation
forfor anan
origin
origin
ofof thethe
ofof declara-
declara-
greater injustice
might
be done
its issuance
judgments
torytory judgments
Cullison,
Cullison,
equity.
equity.
inin courts
courts ofof
prevented
than
operation.
would be
its
Board
1073,
1073,
Thus,Thus,
P.2dP.2d atat
Worten,
n.n. 2.2.
County
proceeding
proceeding
whether thethe
whether
Commissioners
Carter
v.
mandamus,
mandamus, prohibition,
prohibition,
isis oneone
P.
inin
declaratory
declaratory
554. Mandamus is
oror
governed
relief,
relief,
by equitable principles.
principles
principles
equity
equity
State ex rel.
ofof
areare
whenwhen
considered
considered
Ford, Okl.,
Nesbitt v.
fashioning
fashioning
Ct.R. 1.191.
by petitioners. The Petitioners cutting on- this action
they must seek to achieve "in order appropriations
going defending and supporting,
higher purpose of provisions obeying the terms OK 26 p. Brief at Petnrs' Constitution." Spouse CRANFILL, Surviving W. Sandra Plaintiff, Cranfill, L. of Cortez past sum, in the has this Court 124 In v. confu jurisdiction to settle original assumed gridlock. Eth LIFE governmental AETNA INSURANCE relieve sion Cullison, COMPANY, ics Commission Defendant. juris original assumption of
P.2d 1069. Our 96,843. No. create confu used to not be diction should cur funds uncertainty with those sion and Supreme Court of Oklahoma. government. fund state rently being used to April State, rel. ex supra, State Tulsa v. City of Dunbar, supra. This Court Cartwright v. rulings prospec making history its
has have been deter appropriations
tive the sin because unconstitutional
mined to be Campbell violated.
gle-subject rule was Walters, supra;
White, supra; Johnson v. Oklahoma rel. Wiseman
State ex
Corrections, history consis supra. This extraordinary to issue our refusal
tent with confusion, create they would writs Ford, supra, consis ex rel. Nesbitt considered we have cases when
tent with Clay prospective, making rulings
equities No. 1 Tulsa Dist. Independent School making and consistent with County, supra, ac prospective when rulings
our State, supra. Vanderpool required,
tion is many mil- today shuts down The case
1 25 in the cur appropriations of dollars
tions is effec writ year. The Court's fiscal
rent day the Clerk it is filed with tive Associates, Inc. v. Pain Chronic Court. 127, ¶31,
Bubenik, make I would
1364; Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.198. effective 60 ruling prospective,
the Court's regular goes into Legislature
days after