# 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/9546706

## 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 McINERNEY
- **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/9546706

## Opinion text

McINERNEY, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion holds that the State Highway Commission is not obligated to perform according to the terms of an executed contract, voluntarily entered into pursuant to a statute, 47 O.S.1961, § 22.-2(e). This result is reached on the theory of governmental immunity, announced in the early case of Love v. Filtsch, 33 Okl. 131 , 124 P. 30 (1912), relating to contracts with the State, and cases following Love . I would affirm the judgment on the basis of Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Fortinberry Co., 201 Okl. 537 , 207 P.2d 301 (1949), wherein the Court stated in the first paragraph of its syllabus:
“Where a special fund is created from sources not coming from, or out of, the general revenue fund of the State, authority may be granted to an officer, board or commission to expend said fund for a special purpose, where the authority to disburse said fund or obligate the State is limited to the amount of money that may go into said fund, and such officer, board or commission is not permitted to incur an indebtedness against the State which may be payable out of, or charged against, the general revenue fund of the State.”
It seems to me that Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Fortinberry Co., supra, applies in the circumstances of this case since the Legislature has created a special fund to finance projects of this type involving highway construction contracts. 47 O.S.1961, § 22.2(e). The general revenue fund of the State is not affected by the judgment of the trial court. In view of this statute and the judgment limiting satisfaction of the claim to monies from this special fund, I do not deem the form of the pleadings of controlling significance. I believe that the Legislature has fully accomplished the purpose of providing payment of these contracts by enacting 47 O.S.1961, § 22.2(e).
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546706. Public record. Not legal advice.