Opinion

Draper v. State

  • 621 P.2d 1142
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Dec 23, 1980
Status
Published
Author
Irwin
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

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING

IRWIN, Vice Chief Justice:

On Rehearing the respondent challenges our finding that the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 5, § 56, does not mandate a general appropriations bill. We find no reason now to alter that view. However, our holding that Attorney General Opinion Nos. 79-311 and 79-313-B are invalid and of no effect is, of course, limited to the single issue actually presented to and determined by the court.

In addition to finding HB 1140 unconstitutional in light of Okla.Const. Art. 5, § 56, Attorney General Opinion No. 79-313-B also declared a specific section of HB 1140 unconstitutional for another reason. Section 8 of HB 1140 appropriated $240,000 from the General Revenue Fund to the State Board of Education to assist in defraying the cost of rebuilding school buildings destroyed by fire in six designated school districts. Attorney General Opinion No. 79-313-B declared the Section 8 appropriation unconstitutional as a special and local law prohibited by Okla.Const., Art. 5, § 46.

Neither party placed the correctness of this additional finding at issue in this case, but instead they agreed that the Attorney General’s conclusion regarding Section 8 *1148 was not a subject in this action. Therefore, we express no view in this case on the correctness of the conclusion contained in Attorney General Opinion No. 79-313-B concerning Section 8 of HB 1140.

LAVENDER, C. J., and WILLIAMS, HODGES, HARGRAVE and BARNES, JJ., concur.

SIMMS, J., dissents.

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.