Opinion

Simpson v. Dixon

  • 64 O.B.A.J. 1721
  • 853 P.2d 176
  • 1993 OK 71
  • 1993 Okla. LEXIS 89
  • 1993 WL 173642
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
May 21, 1993
Status
Published
Author
Watt
On the bench
Opala, Simms, Hargrave, Wilson, Kauger, Hodges, Lavender, Summers, Watt
Cited by
38 cases

dealing with the statewide procedural uniformity in municipal election protests

How later courts described this case

  • dealing with the statewide procedural uniformity in municipal election protests

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WATT, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent. The opinion adopted by the majority today will send shock waves through municipal hallways across this state in every Charter city and town. Where reason once prevailed, chaos now reigns.

This is a simple case in the final analysis. The contestant had two days under Oklahoma City’s Charter within which to protest the election results. Because he waited three days, contestant’s contest came too late. A certificate of election should issue to petitioner, Sheila G. Simpson.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.