In Re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 KAUGER, Chief Justice:
¶2 The dispositive issue presented is whether highway improvement bonds authorized by 73 O.S. Supp.1997 § 168.61 create a prohibited debt within the meaning of the Okla. Const, art. 10, §§ 23,2 243 and 25.4 We find that the highway improvement bonds issued pursuant to 73 O.S. Supp.1997 § 168.6 are constitutional. Because the statute in question does not bind future Legislatures to make the anticipated appropriations, the highway improvement bonds do not create “debts” within the meaning of the Oklahoma Constitution. The full faith and credit of the state is not…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Tranter v. Alleghency County Co. AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- State Ex Rel. York v. TurpenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- Book v. State Office Building CommissionIndiana Supreme Court · 1958
- Indiana National Bank v. State Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Fent v. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
- Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2018
- Calvey v. DaxonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
- Submission of Interrogatories on House Bill 99-1325Supreme Court of Colorado · 1999
- Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority v. Medical Technology & Research AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.