# Davis v. Fieker

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552110

## 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:** On rehearing by Opala
- **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/9552110

## 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

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING
OPALA, Justice.
By their joint rehearing petition the parties inform the court of having “inadvertently ... caused confusion ...” by their failure to stress that the Board of Health rules and regulations, promulgated in 1979 under the authority conferred by the provisions of 63 O.S. 1991 § 1-737 1 , have lost *517 their efficacy (lapsed) in 1991. The joint plea urges that the court’s opinion he modified by (1) setting aside the nisi prius dismissal of the Board of Health members from participation in the suit as parties defendant below and (2) remanding this cause to the trial court for an order directing the Board of Health commissioners to “promulgate rules and regulations governing abortion facilities pursuant to [the provisions of] 68 O.S. [1991] § 1-737.”
We modify the court’s opinion herein by adding to its text that this cause stands remanded (a) for an inquiry into the parties’ claim that the 1979 regulations became ineffective in 1991; and, if it be found that their force did indeed lapse, then for (b) consideration of the plaintiffs’ plea that the Board of Health members be reinstated as parties defendant below; and (c) issuance of a writ directing the Board of Health commissioners to promulgate and enforce such rules and regulations as will implement, and be consistent with, this court’s opinion herein.. See Sooner Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Mobley 1981 OK 124 , 645 P.2d 1000, 1003 (supplemental opinion on rehearing by Lavender, J.)
Rehearing is granted; opinion supplemented; except as modified herein, the court’s earlier opinion will stand unaltered.
KAUGER, C.J., and SUMMERS, V.C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON and WATT, JJ., concur..
SIMMS, J., dissents.
. The provisions of 63 O.S. 1991 § 1-737 are:
"An abortion otherwise permitted by law shall be performed only in a hospital, as defined in this article, which meets standards set by the Department. The Department shall develop and promulgate reasonable standards relating to abortions.” [Emphasis mine]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552110. Public record. Not legal advice.