# Prudential Property & Casualty Co. v. Grimes

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · June 12, 1986 · 725 P.2d 1246

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793686

## Case

- **Full name:** PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Et Al., Appellants, v. Gerald GRIMES, Insurance Commissioner, State of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** June 12, 1986
- **Citations:** 725 P.2d 1246; 1986 OK 32; 1986 Okla. LEXIS 134
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Opala
- **Judges:** Summers, Opala, Simms, Doolin, Opa-La, Wilson, Hodges, Lavender, Har-Grave, Kauger
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9793686

## Opinion text

OPALA, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s pronouncement that, during the pendency of the appellants’ 1981 protest proceedings, the Legislature may not authorize, without offending Art. V, § 54, Okl. Const., a diversion of money from the § 206 1 account kept by the Insurance Commissioner for payment of tax refunds unless its action be in conformity to the terms of that section’s version in force at the time the protest proceedings were triggered.
I write separately to articulate my view that a contrary holding today clearly would violate Art. V, § 46, Okl. Const. As refund claimants in pending judicial tax protest proceedings appellants cannot be relegated to a less efficacious remedy for enforcing a judgment for tax refund against the State than that which is affordable by law to successful protesters seeking satisfaction of adjudicated refund claims from § 206 accounts of other agencies. By the clear command of Art. V, § 46 2 all taxpayers must be provided with the same method for collecting their § 206 refund claims. For that purpose all § 206 claimants must be treated alike. They comprise a single, indivisible class which may not be dicho-tomized into distinct subclasses. Non-uniform regulation of procedure for enforcement of judgments is plainly, absolutely and unequivocally interdicted by the command of our fundamental law. 3
. 62 O.S.1981 § 206.
. The terms of Art. V, § 46, Okl. Const., provide in pertinent part:
“The Legislature shall not ... pass any local or special law authorizing;.
... changing the methods for ... the enforcement of judgments....” [Emphasis added.]
.See, Maule v. Independent School Dist. No. 9, Okl., 714 P.2d 198, 204 [1986] and Barrett v. Board of Com’rs of Tulsa County, 185 Okl. 111 , 90 P.2d 442, 446-447 [1939].

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793686. Public record. Not legal advice.