Opinion

Fent v. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority

  • 984 P.2d 200
  • 1999 OK 64
  • 1999 WL 456951
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Jul 8, 1999
Status
Published
Author
Watt
On the bench
Ala, Summers, Hargrave, Hodges, Simms, Kauger, Watt, Lavender, Opala, Wilson
Cited by
60 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.2%

financing scheme that involved “[a]t most . . . appropriation-risk or moral obligation bonds” did not create constitutional debt because there was “no legally enforceable contract between [the Legislature] and either [the Capitol Improvement Authority], the various agencies, etc. or the citizens of Oklahoma to make the anticipated appropriations necessary to retire the bonds”

How later courts described this case

  • financing scheme that involved “[a]t most . . . appropriation-risk or moral obligation bonds” did not create constitutional debt because there was “no legally enforceable contract between [the Legislature] and either [the Capitol Improvement Authority], the various agencies, etc. or the citizens of Oklahoma to make the anticipated appropriations necessary to retire the bonds”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WATT, J.

concurring specially:

¶ 1 I join Justice Kauger in her specially concurring opinion. I write, however, to make clear my conclusion that my dissent in In Re: Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 1998 OK 25 ¶¶ 1-2, 958 P.2d 759 , has nothing to do with the facts of the case at bar.

¶ 2 Although Justice Lavender has cited to my dissent in Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority at ¶ 10 of his opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, I do not believe that my analysis in my dissent applies here. I ‘ dissented there because the roads being financed by the bonds in that case produced no revenues with which the bonds could be repaid. Here, however, as Justice Kauger observed in her specially concurring opinion, at ¶ 2, “It is unnecessary to determine the character of the obligation created because these are traditional, self-liquidating proposals historically upheld by this Courts jurisprudence. Stare decisis demands their approval.” For this reason I believe there is ample authority other than Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority supporting the conclusion that the bonds at issue here are constitutional. Thus, I see no reason to dissent to the majority opinions approval of the bonds at issue here and decline to do so.

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.