In Re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1DissentSummers, J.
¶ 1 The Court concludes that the bond issue does not satisfy Article 10 § 16 of the Oklahoma Constitution because the “purpose” of the funds is not set forth with specificity. I respectfully dissent from that conclusion. The Oklahoma Constitution contains two provisions that require a law to specify the purpose for which public money is spent: Okla. Const. Art 10 § 16 (borrowed funds), and Art. 5 § 55 (appropriated funds). In arriving at a meaning for the former the Court declines to use our precedent on the latter. The result is that one standard will apply to laws authorizing the borrowing…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Keating v. EdmondsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2001
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Getty Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Reherman v. Oklahoma Water Resources BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- State Ex Rel. York v. TurpenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- State Ex Rel. v. Board of County Com'rsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.