Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 3, 2003No. 97,936Published

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

  1. Keating v. EdmondsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2001
  2. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Getty Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  3. Reherman v. Oklahoma Water Resources BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
  4. State Ex Rel. York v. TurpenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
  5. State Ex Rel. v. Board of County Com'rsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940

31 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