Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
HUNSUCKER v. FALLIN
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided December 19, 2017No. 116,131Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Wyrick, J.,
with whom Gurich, V.C.J., and Winchester, J,, join, concurring in part and dissenting'in part: •
¶ 1 Our Constitution grants the Court the power to decide justiciable cases — i.e., live controversies where there is a plaintiff with standing and an issue that is ripe for review. This limitation is a crucial component of the separation of powers between the co-equal branches of our government. It is what keeps our non-political branch out of the business of resolving policy disputes.
¶ 2 Because the litigants who bring it lack standing under our well-accepted three-part test (no member…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.