# 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/3827288

## 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:** Concurrence by Andrews
- **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/3827288

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

ANDREWS, J.
I concur in the conclusion, but I do not concur in the law announced. In my opinion sections 4 (a) to 4 (e) of article 18 of the Constitution relates to the initiative and referendum and Sections 5 (a), 5 (b) of that article relate to franchises. I think that different things are considered and different procedure provided by the two sections. In my opinion the procedure for the initiative and referendum is not applicable to franchises.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3827288. Public record. Not legal advice.