# Davis v. Fieker

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · January 27, 1998 · 952 P.2d 505

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552109

## Case

- **Full name:** Frank W. DAVIS, Larry Ferguson, Robert Worthen, Tim Pope, Dan Webb, Charles Gray, Charles Key, Joan Greenwood, Carolyn Coleman, Wayne Cozort, Leonard Sullivan, Grover Campbell, Wayne Pettigrew, Mike O’Neal, Jim Reese, Richard Phillips, John Smaligo, Mike Thornbrugh, Doug Miller, John Sullivan, Scott Adkins, Fred Perry, Odilia Dank, Sharon Golmoradi and Craig Evans, M.D., Appellants, v. Dan H. FIEKER, President of Oklahoma State Board of Health, Gordon H. Deckert, Vice President of the Oklahoma State Board of Health, Beth Anita Gordon, Glen Diacon, Jr., R. Brent Smith, Frank W. Merrick, John B. Carmichael, Jay A. Gregory, Walter Scott, Members of the Oklahoma State Board of Health, Jerry Nida, Commissioner of the Oklahoma State Board of Health and the Department of Health of the State of Oklahoma, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 27, 1998
- **Citations:** 952 P.2d 505; 1997 OK 156; 1997 WL 795747
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kauger
- **Judges:** Hodges, Lavender, Hargrave, Opala, Watt, Kauger, Summers, Wilson, Simms
- **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/9552109

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying “direct, immediate and substantial” test to determine that physician who practices medicine in state of Oklahoma has standing to challenge abortion regulations

## Opinion text

KAUGER, Chief Justice,
concurring in result, with whom OPALA, J., joins:
The challengers/appellees have failed to present any credible evidence that requiring abortions to be performed in a hospital after the first trimester is cost prohibitive, causes an undue burden and amounts to “a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion” under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. 1 Without any evidence in the record before this Court, a determination that the statutes 2 are invalid may not be based on speculation. 3 Based on the facts — and the lack thereof — before us, I concur in the result of the majority’s opinion.
. 505 U.S. 833, 884 , 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2824 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992).
. 63 O.S.1991 §§ 1-731 and 1-737.
. Mazurek v. Armstrong, — U.S. —, —-—, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 1867-68 , 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 884-886, 901 , 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2824-2825, 2832 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992); A Woman's Choice-East Side Women's Clinic v. Newman, 904 F.Supp. 1434, 1448 (S.D.Ind.1995).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552109. Public record. Not legal advice.