# Keating v. Johnson

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 14, 1996 · 67 O.B.A.J. 1680

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557551

## Case

- **Full name:** Frank KEATING, Governor of Oklahoma; Fred Morgan, State Representative; And Chris Hastings, State Representative, Petitioners, v. Glen D. JOHNSON, Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives; Stratton Taylor, President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate; Terry Tyree, in His Capacity as Acting Commissioner of the State Insurance Fund; Carlisle Mabrey, III; H.E. Rainbolt; Phil Tholen; Mike Nobles; Senator Ted Fisher; Senator Kevin Easley; Senator Larry Dickerson; Representative Don McCorkell; Representative James E. Hamilton; Representative Bill Settle; Bob Hollander, in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement Board; Meridith Lacey; And Gene Torbett, Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** May 14, 1996
- **Citations:** 67 O.B.A.J. 1680; 918 P.2d 51; 1996 OK 61; 1996 Okla. LEXIS 73; 1996 WL 250630
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hodges
- **Judges:** Opala, Wilson, Lavender, Hargrave, Ala, Simms, Kauger, Hodges, Summers, Watt
- **Cited by:** 33 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/9557551

## Opinion text

HODGES, Justice,
dissenting.
Today this Court declines to address this real and substantial dispute between two contending departments of government over the appointment of members of boards and commissions. The majority holds that there is no urgency involved in this dispute and thus no need for a speedy resolution. The parties are left to pursue the matter in the district court and undoubtedly to again visit this Court on appeal for de novo review of the same legal issues based on the same undisputed facts. The parties are thus left to run the gauntlet of meaningless litigation. I must dissent.
Petitioners note that the issues presented go to “the fundamental structure of government in Oklahoma.” Respondents believe that if Petitioners’ requested relief is granted it will constitute “the greatest transfer of power in Oklahoma since the Constitutional Convention.” The impact of this litigation will assuredly go beyond the boards and commissions named as Respondents to dozens of others whose membership is designated in part by some entity other than the Governor. No reasonable mind could dispute the public importance of the issues presented.
In determining whether a controversy is appropriate for the exercise of original jurisdiction, this Court has considered both the importance and urgency of resolving the dispute. The majority focuses on only one of these guiding principals. Urgency is but one factor militating towards the assumption of original jurisdiction. It is to be weighed alongside the importance of the issues involved. The majority has weighed urgency *68 so heavily in the equation that it ignores the tremendous importance of the issues.
It is difficult to imagine a controversy whose resolution is more important to the proper functioning of this state’s government. The need for review is heightened by the fact the Legislature has not followed an Attorney General’s opinion which determined that the challenged statutes are constitutionally infirm under a separation of powers analysis.
Original jurisdiction should be assumed rather than waiting to review the issues in the inevitable appeal. Addressing Petitioners’ application would provide the most expeditious method of resolving the controversy. It would also result in less disruption of state government. This Court has not and should not wait for disputes to escalate into a crisis posture before resolving issues of vital public concern such as the ones presented in this dispute between two departments of government. Today’s dispute left unresolved is indeed likely to escalate into tomorrow’s constitutional crisis.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557551. Public record. Not legal advice.