# 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/9793108

## 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 Simms
- **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/9793108

## Opinion text

SIMMS, J.,
CONCURRING:
¶ 1 I most respectfully disagree with my colleague, Justice Opala, when he opines that each and every Justice on this Court is disqualified in this bond case simply because of the potential for improved chambers if and when these bonds are marketed, and the funds from the bond sale for a new and improved courts building become an actuality. I dare say my colleague speaks only for himself and not for the other members of this Court in his thoughts about the desirability and importance of a private bathroom. The grounds for disqualification urged by Justice Opala are more imagined than real, for it is my observation that Justice Opala is the only member of this Court who is passionate about having a bathroom in his chambers.
¶ 2 There is nothing new or novel about a judge or justice having private bathroom facilities. Indeed, when the Tulsa County Courthouse was dedicated in about 1954, that courthouse was designed with private bathroom facilities for each judge’s chambers. A visit to many of the older courthouses in Oklahoma will reveal the judge has access to private facilities.
¶ 3 This Justice, due to the passage of time between planning and occupancy of a new court building, will never occupy the new or remodeled building, and therefore has no thoughts of sugar plums dancing in his head. Even casual study of the current court shows this observation applies to other Justices as well.
¶ 4 Although I do not believe Fent has established any ground for the disqualification of any of the Justices or any Justice of this Court, I agree with my brother Opala, that if, arguendo, this Court were disqualified, the Rule of Necessity would come into focus. Certainly, the Governor could not name the court in a case in which he is a litigant. There is no other statutory or constitutional authority existing by which any substitute tribunal could be named.
¶ 5 I am authorized to state that Justice Kauger and Justice Watt join with the views expressed herein

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793108. Public record. Not legal advice.