# State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. McKnight

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · January 11, 1972 · 496 P.2d 775

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546705

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Oklahoma Ex Rel. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS of the State of Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. Hal B. McKNIGHT, an Individual D/B/A McKnight Construction Company, Defendant in Error
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 11, 1972
- **Citations:** 496 P.2d 775; 1972 OK 3
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hodges
- **Judges:** Lavender, Berry, Davison, Williams, Jackson, Irwin, Hodges, McInerney
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Modified on other grounds by Schrom Ex Rel. Schrom v. Oklahoma Industrial Development, 536 P.2d 904 (1975).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546705

## Opinion text

HODGES, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the recent case of Newman v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents, etc., 490 P.2d 1079 (1971). There I concluded the doctrine of governmental immunity as court made law should be abrogated.
Especially is this so under the facts of this case where the State has entered into a contract pursuant to legislature authorization. See Grant Construction Company v. Burns, 92 Idaho 408 , 443 P.2d 1005 . Even if soverign immunity is to be continued, as the majority of the court has avowed, it should not be invoked in the present case where statutory authority for the State Highway Commission to enter into a contract is tantamount to legislative consent to be sued for the breach of that contract.
When a State has entered into a business contract with a private concern or individual the rights, duties and obligations of that contract are mutually binding and reciprocal. Each party should be allowed to enforce the provisions of that contract and each should be allowed to sue for damages when either causes a breach of the contract. There is no mutuality or reciprocity where the State can enforce the provisions of a contract and accept its benefits, and at the same time deny the right *785 of a citizen to sue where the actions on the part of the State has caused a breach of the contract resulting in damages to the individual. Fairness demands a better forum of justice.
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546705. Public record. Not legal advice.