Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Initiative Petition No. 27 of Oklahoma City

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 9, 2003No. 98,781Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSummers, J.

"[ 1 I concur in assuming jurisdiction. We should assume original jurisdiction for the purpose of explaining that the proper forum for reviewing a municipal clerk's decision is a District Court. I would make this ruling prospective, and then address the merits of the controversy before us. On the merits, I *94respectfully disagree with the Court's opinion, and I would not invalidate a proposed municipal initiative petition that presents a question on whether a municipality will use collective bargaining with its employees.

I. Assuming Original Jurisdiction

T2 This Court has assumed original…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Christian v. GraySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
  3. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. City of Arkansas CityCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
  4. Thomas B. Hennigh v. City of Shawnee, Terry Powell, and Hank LandCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
  5. Barbara Asbill v. Housing Authority of the Choctaw Nation of OklahomaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1984

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API