# Berry v. Board of Governors of the Registered Dentists

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · March 25, 1980 · 611 P.2d 628

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9530359

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerry D. BERRY, D/B/A Eastside Denture Studio, Don Adams, D/B/A Osage Denture Clinic, Jim Barrentine, D/B/A Sand Springs Denture Clinic, Larry W. Barnes, and R. Sterling Killian, D/B/A Northeast Denture Clinic, Appellants, v. the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF the REGISTERED DENTISTS OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** March 25, 1980
- **Citations:** 611 P.2d 628; 1980 OK 45; 1980 Okla. LEXIS 253
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Irwin
- **Judges:** Hodges, Lavender, Williams, Barnes, Simms, Doolin, Har-Grave, Opala, Irwin
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9530359

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing granting of injunction because board failed to vote to seek injunctive relief in a public meeting

## Opinion text

IRWIN, Vice Chief Justice,
dissenting.
In discussing the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act in connection with the attorney-client confidentiality rule, the majority states:
“Although the municipal attorneys’ case ( 577 P.2d 1310 ) permits executive sessions on the advice of counsel in certain specified instances, it does not abrogate the statutory requirement that minutes be kept and recorded; . . . Even if an executive session is properly held and minutes are recorded which might be determined to qualify under the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality, the statute requires that any vote or action taken in an executive session must be in a public meeting with the vote of each member publicly cast and recorded.”
In my opinion, the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act has no application whatsoever in those instances when an executive session is “properly held” 1 for confidential communications between a public body and its attorney because the attorney-client privilege of *633 confidentiality extends to all phases of such sessions. I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that OPALA, J., concurs in the views expressed herein.
. “Properly held” as used herein means within the limitation set forth in Oklahoma Ass’n of Municipal Attorneys v. State, Okl., 577 P.2d 1310 (1978).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9530359. Public record. Not legal advice.