# In Re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · June 3, 2003 · 74 O.B.A.J. 1722

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783587

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Application of the OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY for Approval of $155 Million Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority State Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2002C and $20 Million, Series 2002D(Taxable)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** June 3, 2003
- **Citations:** 74 O.B.A.J. 1722; 80 P.3d 109; 2003 OK 59; 2003 Okla. LEXIS 64; 2003 WL 21295711
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ala
- **Judges:** Boudreau, Ala, Summers, Watt, Hodges, Lavender, Hargrave, Kauger, Winchester
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9783587

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that this definition of the word “purpose” comports with the word’s “natural and ordinary meaning”

## Opinion text

OP ALA, V.C.J.,
concurring in result.
¶ 1 Although I am persuaded that today’s pronouncement represents a correct resolution of an issue in this controversy, I cannot give it my unqualified assent. The bonded indebtedness to be approved today is tainted by a pervasive and clearly incurable flaw. It cannot facially qualify as a self-liquidating loan transaction. Aside from its deficient descriptive designation, the obligation’s repayment source is not shown to come from a project-generated revenue stream but rather appears to draw from the uncertainty (or risk of legislative appropriation). The State may not borrow for any purpose without a vote of her people. Art. 10 § 25, Okl. Const. Attaching to the loan a “moral obligation” label will not erase the reality of placing the State in the status of a borrower. It is the act of receiving borrowed money sans the voters’ assent which offends the Constitution’s prohibition that lies at the base of this controversy.
*121 ¶ 2 Without fully joining the court’s pronouncement, I concur solely in today’s refusal to approve the bonds sought to be issued. For a full explanation of my analyses see Application of Oklahoma Capitol Imp. Auth., 1998 OK 25 , 958 P.2d 759, 779 (Opala, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783587. Public record. Not legal advice.