From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weddington v. Henry

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 24, 2008
202 P.3d 143 (Okla. 2008)

Summary

finding that S.B. 1708, which related to uniform laws, was facially contrary to Article 5, § 57 and void in its entirety

Summary of this case from Douglas v. Cox Ret. Props., Inc.

Opinion

No. 106,330.

November 24, 2008.


West Codenotes

Held Unconstitutional

12A Okl.St.Ann. §§ 1-303[ 12A-1-303], 3-103, 3-106, 3-116, 3-119, 3-305, 3-309, 3-312, 3-419, 3-602, 3-604, 3-605, 4-102, 4-104, 4-105, 4-212, 4-301, 4-403, 4A-505, 7-209; 18 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 440-101[ 18-440-101], 440-102, 440-103, 440-104, 440-105, 440-106, 440-107, 440-108, 440-109, 440-110, 440-111, 440-112, 440-113, 440-114, 440-215, 440-216, 440-217, 440-218, 440-319, 440-320, 440-201, 440-402, 440-403, 440-404, 440-405, 440-506, 440-507, 440-108, 440-108, 44-301, 440-302, 440-303, 440-304, 440-401, 440-402, 440-203, 440-404, 440-405, 440-406, 440-407, 440-501, 440-502, 440-503, 440-504, 440-505, 440-506, 440-507, 440-508, 440-509, 440-510, 440-511, 440-512, 440-513, 440-514, 440-515, 440-516, 440-517, 440-601, 440-602, 440-603, 440-604, 440-605, 440-701, 440-702, 440-703, 440-704, 440-801, 440-802, 440-803, 440-804, 440-805, 440-806, 440-807, 440-808, 440-809, 440-810, 440-811, 400-812, 440-813, 440-814, 440-815, 44-816, 440-817, 440-818, 440-819, 440-820, 440-821, 440-822, 440-823, 440-901, 440-1001, 440-1002, 440-1003, 440-1004, 440-1005, 440-1006, 440-1007, 440-1008, 440-1009, 440-1101, 440-1102, 440-1103, 440-1201, 440-1202, 440-1203, 440-1204, 440-1205, 440-1206, 440-1207, 440-1208, 440-1209, 440-1210, 440-1211, 440-1212, 440-1213, 440-1214, 440-1215, 440-1301, 440-1302, 440-1303, 440-1304, 440-1305, 440-1401, 440-1402, 440-1403, 440-1404, 440-1405, 440-1406, 440-1407, 440-1408, 440-1501, 440-1502, 440-1503, 440-1504, 440-1601, 440-1602, 440-1603, 440-1604, 440-1605, 440-1606, 440-1607, 440-1608, 440-1609, 440-1610, 440-1611, 440-1612, 440-1701, 440-1702, 440-1703, 440-1704, 435; 54 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 500-101[ 54-500-101], 500-102, 500-103, 500-104, 500-105, 500-106, 500-107, 500-108, 500-109, 500-110, 500-111, 500-112, 500-113, 500-114, 500-115, 500-116, 500-117,500-118, 500-201, 500-202, 500-203, 500-204, 500-205, 500-206, 500-207, 500-208, 500-209, 500-210, 500-301, 500-302, 500-303, 500-304, 500-305, 500-306, 500-401, 500-402, 500-403, 500-404, 500-405, 500-406, 500-407, 500-408, 500-501, 500-502, 500-503, 500-504, 500-505, 500-506, 500-507, 500-508, 500-509, 500-601, 500-602, 500-603, 500-604, 500-605, 500-606, 500-607, 500-701, 500-702, 500-703, 500-704, 500-801, 500-802, 500-803, 500-804, 500-805, 500-806, 500-807, 500-808, 500-809, 500-810, 500-811, 500-812, 500-901, 500-902, 500-903, 500-904, 500-905, 500-906, 500-907, 500-908, 500-1001, 500-1002, 500-1003, 500-1004, 500-1005, 500-1101, 500-1102, 500-1103, 500-1104, 500-1105, 500-1106, 500-1107, 500-1108, 500-1109, 500-1110, 500-1111, 500-1112, 500-1113, 500-1201, 500-1202, 500-1203, 500-1204, 500-1205, 500-1206, 500-1207; 60 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 1101[ 60-1101], 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109; 63 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 2200.1[ 63-2200.1], 2200.2, 2200.3, 2200.4, 2200.5, 2200.6, 2200.7, 2200.8, 2200.9, 2200.10, 2200.11, 2200.12, 2200.13, 2200.14, 2200.15, 2200.16, 2200.17, 2200.18, 2200.19, 2200.20, 2200.21, 2200.22, 2200.23, 2200.24, 2200.25, 2200.26, 2200.27, 2210.

ORDER

The legislation challenged in this original proceeding, identified as Senate Bill 1708, passed by the 51st Legislature, second session on May 23, 2008, and signed into law by the Governor on June 3, 2008, is facially contrary to the Oklahoma Constitution, Article V, Section 57. The entire measure is declared unconstitutional and void. Fent v. State ex rel. Office of State Finance, 2008 OK 2, 184 P.3d 467.

/s/ James E. Edmondson

VICE CHIEF JUSTICE

EDMONDSON, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, COLBERT, REIF, JJ., concur.

OPALA, J., with whom WINCHESTER, C.J., HARGRAVE, TAYLOR, JJ. join, dissenting:

"I concede that the legislation sought to be invalidated is unconstitutional in part but not in toto."


Summaries of

Weddington v. Henry

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 24, 2008
202 P.3d 143 (Okla. 2008)

finding that S.B. 1708, which related to uniform laws, was facially contrary to Article 5, § 57 and void in its entirety

Summary of this case from Douglas v. Cox Ret. Props., Inc.

In Weddington v. Henry, 2008 OK 102, ¶ 1, 202 P.3d 143, we struck down a nearly 300 page statute which provided for amendments, modifications, and adoptions of various uniform laws.

Summary of this case from FENT v. STATE
Case details for

Weddington v. Henry

Case Details

Full title:Ben A. WEDDINGTON, Jerry Balentine, and Johnathan Reiff, Petitioners, v…

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Nov 24, 2008

Citations

202 P.3d 143 (Okla. 2008)
2008 OK 102

Citing Cases

Douglas v. Cox Ret. Props., Inc.

Id. We reaffirmed such an approach in Weddington v. Henry, 2008 OK 102, 202 P.3d 143, where we struck down a…

FENT v. STATE

Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title,…