# State Ex Rel. Turpen v. Oklahoma State Board for Property & Casualty Rates

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · August 12, 1986 · 731 P.2d 394

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9626745

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Michael C. TURPEN, Attorney General, Appellant, v. the OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD for PROPERTY AND CASUALTY RATES and the National Council on Compensation Insurance, a Rating Organization, Appellees; The NATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMPENSATION INSURANCE, a Rating Organization, Appellant, v. the OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD FOR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY RATES, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** August 12, 1986
- **Citations:** 731 P.2d 394
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wilson
- **Judges:** Opala, Simms, Doolin, Hodges, Hargrave, Summers, Lavender, Wilson, Kauger
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9626745

## Opinion text

ALMA WILSON, Justice
(concurring specially):
I fully concur with the disposition effected and the analysis supporting such disposition as set forth in the majority opinion; and consistent with the majority opinion, on remand, the Oklahoma State Board For Property And Casualty Rates should request production or require the National Council On Compensation Insurance to show cause why the Attorney General’s request of September 10, 1985 for data production should not be complied with. Findings and conclusions based on this data would appropriately implement 75 O.S. 1981 , § 312 of the Administrative Procedures Act, which is in no way irreconcilable with 36 O.S.1981 § 345(B) as delineated by the majority opinion. Legislative acts are to be construed in such manner as to reconcile different provisions and render them consistent and harmonious and give intelligent effect to each. Eason Oil Company v. Corporation Commission, 535 P.2d 283 (Okl.1975). Unless a conflict between prior and subsequent enactments is irreconcilable, the earlier provision will not be repealed by the later enactment, and nothing short of irreconcilable conflict between statutes accomplishes a repeal by implication. City of Sand Springs v. Department of Public Welfare, 608 P.2d 1139 (Okl.1980).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9626745. Public record. Not legal advice.