# Fent v. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · July 8, 1999 · 984 P.2d 200

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793103

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerry R. FENT and Margaret B. Fent, Husband and Wife, as Resident Taxpayers and Voters of the State of Oklahoma, Petitioners, v. OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY, a Body Corporate and Politic of the Oklahoma of Oklahoma
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** July 8, 1999
- **Citations:** 984 P.2d 200; 1999 OK 64; 1999 WL 456951
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Watt
- **Judges:** Ala, Summers, Hargrave, Hodges, Simms, Kauger, Watt, Lavender, Opala, Wilson
- **Cited by:** 60 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/9793103

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793103. Public record. Not legal advice.