# Dobbs v. Board of County Com'rs of Oklahoma County

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 26, 1953 · 208 Okla. 514

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9854261

## Case

- **Full name:** DOBBS v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM’RS OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** May 26, 1953
- **Citations:** 208 Okla. 514; 257 P.2d 802; 1953 OK 159; 1953 Okla. LEXIS 827
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Arnold
- **Judges:** Halley, Johnson, Welch, Davison, Arnold, Williams, Corn, O'Neal, Blackbird
- **Cited by:** 25 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/9854261

## Opinion text

ARNOLD, J.
(specially concurring). The effective block placed in the highway of the administration of justice by Nichols v. Levy (1931) 151 Okla. 245 , 1 P. 2d 766 , has been removed. The widows, the orphans, the insane, the halt and the blind —in fact, all residents of this state whose problems fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the county court of Oklahoma county may have, as intended, justice without delay.
Our fundamental rights to justice, equality, freedom and the pursuit of happiness did not come from the Congress, the Legislature, or the judiciary. We are endowed with these absolutely inalienable rights — they came from the Creator of us all, God. This is plainly recognized by our Constitutions.
All legislative power must come from the people — sovereign because endowed with those fundamental rights. The ultimate purpose of all government is to vouchsafe and keep secure the exercise of these rights.
Recognizing the importance of these sovereign rights, as did Patrick Henry and the President of the United States lately when he so earnestly approved *522 the immortal statement, “Give me Liberty or give me Death”, the people vested in the Legislature power to legislate on all rightful subjects not specifically withheld. Article 5, §36 of our state Constitution provides:
“The authority of the Legislature shall extend to all rightful subjects of. legislation, and any specific grant of authority in this Constitution, upon any subject whatsoever, shall not work a restriction, limitation, or exclusion of such authority upon the same or any other subject * * * whatsoever.”
Though this is true of most state Constitutions, the reverse is true of the Constitution of the United States. The Congress is restricted in its legislative powers to those specifically granted. Article 1, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States provides:
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Here you have the reason for the universal rule that restriction of the legislative power of our State Legislature must be directly and plainly spoken in the Constitution and the universal rule that any such restriction may never be manufactured by implication.
The courts belong to all the people. The people of Tupelo, Mississippi, have the same rights before the county court of Oklahoma as do the people of Tupelo, Oklahoma, the residents of Oklahoma county, and all other residents of this state. Everybody is entitled to justice and for this reason our Constitution provides the power in these unmistakable words:
“The judicial power of this State shall be vested in the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, a Supreme Court, District Courts, County Courts, Courts of Justices of the Peace, Municipal Courts, and such other courts, commissions or boards, inferior to the Supreme Court, as may be established by law.” Article 7, §1;
and then the adopters told the Legislature and the judges:
“The courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice.” Article 2, §6.
How can this plain mandate of the Constitution be carried out if this court by implication, contrary to all judicial precedent, restrict the Legislature?
Under the plainly expressed purpose and mandate of the Constitution above noted, nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of the Legislature in the proper exercise of its power and duty to provide adequate courts to administer justice to all people promptly. We have heretofore held that where a mandate of the Constitution comes in conflict with a specific restriction the mandate overrides the restriction and must be carried out. (Smartt, Sheriff, v. Board of County Commissioners, Craig Co., 67 Okla. 141 , 169 P. 1101 , L.R.A. 1918C, 313 ; School Dist. No. 62, Craig Co. v. School Dist. No. 17, Craig Co., 143 Okla. 136 , 287 P. 1035 .) There there was a specific restriction. Here there is none.
It is conceded there is no specific limitation on the Legislature to create county courts. The Levy case, supra, is based entirely on faulty interpretation and implication and overlooks some pertinent and significant provisions of our Constitution. When adopted, as now, there was no reason or judicial precedent to support it. It is wrong, always has been wrong, but has effectively prevented the prompt administration of justice in this state. The Legislature determined in 1931 the need for another county judge in Oklahoma county and has now again determined the need of it. This is its exclusive duty and its determination will not be disturbed by appellate courts. Here the need is conceded.
In view of all the circumstances it is the positive duty of this court to over *523 rule Nichols v. Levy, supra. Otherwise, prompt justice commanded by the Constitution will continue to be denied only on the flimsy excuse that consistency should be maintained. Consistency would be of no help here, but the administration of justice would.
Judges, lawyers, preachers of the gospel, and teachers unashamed of their organizational affiliations are agreed that there is little doubt that we are now facing a threat to our democratic way of life, greater, perhaps, than any we have experienced in our national history. This common danger has aroused a united will to defend our institutions. Something more, however, than a mere enthusiasm for democracy must animate its defenders or they will fail. The ultimate survival of our ideal will depend primarily on the strength of its basic institutions and the confi-fence of its citizens in them.
“Jesus said to him, ‘No one who puts his hand to the plough, and then looks back, is fitted for the Kingdom of God.’ ”
—Luke 9:62

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9854261. Public record. Not legal advice.