Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
OCPA IMPACT, INC. v. SHEEHAN
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided July 18, 2016No. 115,108Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
EDMONDSON, J.,
Coneur in Part and Dissent in Part, joined by GURICH, J., and MITCHELL SJ and THORNEBRUGH, S.J.
11 I concur vvith_the Court's treatment of the ballot title but disagree how the challenge to the gist should be adjudicated. I write to explain, why the.Court is required to address a challenge to the glst of the peti*146tion. I conclude that the gist did not create a fraudulent initiative petition process and the matter should proceed with a corrected ballot title. f
2 Prior to 2015, the statutory procedure authorized a person to file objections to proposed law prior to cireulation of an…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- TXO Production Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1964
- In Re Initiative Petition No. 347 State Question No. 639Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1991
- Neer v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
- IN RE: INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 397, STATE QUESTION NO. 767Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2014
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.