# In Re Initiative Petition No. 2 of Cushing

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · February 16, 1932 · 157 Okla. 54

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3827287

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re INITIATIVE PETITION No. 2, CUSHING, OKLAHOMA. JURNEY Et Al. v. HARLOW Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** February 16, 1932
- **Citations:** 157 Okla. 54; 10 P.2d 271; 1932 OK 124; 1932 Okla. LEXIS 786
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kornegay
- **Judges:** Andrews, Swindall, Lester, Clark, Riley, Hefner, Oullison, McNeill, Kornegay
- **Cited by:** 50 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3827287

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the procedure is not mandatory, but, if substantially followed, will be sufficient

## Opinion text

KORNEGAY, J.
(dissenting). I am not able to agree that this court has jurisdiction of this proceeding in error. At one time appellate jurisdiction in connection with initiated measures in cities was conferred upon district courts. This provision was specially repealed by the provisions of chapter 66 of the Session Laws of 1910, page 121, and since that time no provision has been made for an appeal in city initiated matter^. It seems to me that when the parties themselves think they are proceeding by petition in error, this court should not, of its own motion, change the proceedings into an original proceeding, as is done here. It seems to me that if any court has jurisdiction to review the clerk’s action, it is the district .court in the county in which CusMng lies, and by original proceeding in mandamus.
Note. — See under (1) 6 R. C. L. 650; R. O.L. Perm. Supp. p. 1599. (3) 25 R. O. L. 999; R. O. L. Perm. Supp. p. 5639.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3827287. Public record. Not legal advice.