Opinion

Draper v. State

  • 621 P.2d 1142
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Dec 23, 1980
Status
Published
Author
Doolin
On the bench
Lavender, Irwin, Williams, Bárnes, Doolin, Opala, Simms, Hodges, Hargrave, Barnes
Cited by
90 cases

Mandamus will lie to compel the Attorney General to exercise his discretion, but it does not lie to control his action regarding matters within his discretion, unless his discretion has been clearly abused.

How later courts described this case

  • Mandamus will lie to compel the Attorney General to exercise his discretion, but it does not lie to control his action regarding matters within his discretion, unless his discretion has been clearly abused.
  • OKLA.CONST. art. 5, § 56 does not mandate a general appropriation bill and Legislature is not prohibited from enacting a separate appropriation bill for a single agency for one fiscal year

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

DOOLIN, Justice,

concurring in part; dissenting in part:

I concur with the conclusion of the majority when it holds a general appropriation bill is not the sole means of appropriating monies by the Oklahoma Legislature. I dissent to the majority’s opinion and act in assumed jurisdiction on the original application for prerogative writ.

I am authorized to state that SIMMS, J. concurs in this opinion.

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.