NOT INDICATED BY THE TITLE SO THAT THOSE INTERESTED MAY NOT BE MISLED OR MISINFORMED AS TO THE CONTENTS OF THE STATUTE. CONTINENTAL OIL CO.. V. STATE BD. OF EQUALIZATION, 494 P.2D 645 (OKLA. 1972); JONES V. STATE, 542 P.2D 1316 (OKL.CR.1975).
OKLAHOMA LAW GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE V, SECTION 57 STATES THAT THE TITLE OF AN ACT NEED NOT BE AN ABSTRACT OF THE STATUTE'S CONTENT IF IT EXPRESSES THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF THE ACT IN GENERAL TERMS. TAFF V. CITY OF MUSKOGEE, 782 P.2D 155 (OKLA. APP. 1989). FURTHERMORE, THE TERM "SUBJECT", AS USED IN THE SECTION, IS TO BE GIVEN A BROAD AND EXTENSIVE MEANING WHICH ENABLES THE LEGISLATURE TO INCLUDE, IN AN ACT, ALL MATTERS HAVING A LOGICAL OR NATURAL CONNECTION TO THE GENERAL SUBJECT, THOUGH NOT MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY IN THE TITLE. PIERCE V. WESTERN CASUALTY SURETY COMPANY, 666 P.2D 1313 (OKLA. APP. 1983). FURTHERMORE, THE DETAILS PROVIDING FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PURPOSE (OF THE ACT) WILL BE REGARDED AS NECESSARY INCIDENTS. IN RE POWELL, 120 P. 1022 (OKL.CR.1912); A.G. OPINION NO. 79-197.
WITHIN THE TITLE TO THIS ACT, IT GENERALLY STATES, "AN ACT RELATING TO INTOXICATING LIQUORS", AND SPECIFICALLY STATE, PROHIBITING CERTAIN PERSONS IN CERTAIN AREAS. THE TEXT OF THE ACT IN QUESTION PROHIBITS ANY PERSON OPERATING A CAFE, RESTAURANT, CLUB OR ANY PLACE OF RECREATION FROM PERMITTING AN INTOXICATED OR DRUNK PERSON FROM BEING IN SAID PLACE OF BUSINESS. IT IS THE OPINION OF THIS WRITER, THAT PROHIBITING INTOXICATED OR DRUNK PERSONS FROM BEING IN A CAFE, RESTAURANT, CLUB OR ANY PLACE OF RECREATION HAS A LOGICAL AND NATURAL CONNECTION TO THE GENERAL SUBJECT EXPRESSED IN THE TITLE OF THE ACT. FURTHERMORE, WHILE THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED IN BRIAANCE V. VELVET DOVE RESTAURANT, 725 P.2D 300 (OKLA. 1986), WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RELIED ON AND REFERENCED 537, AS THE CORNERSTONE OF THAT OPINION. IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT WOULD NOW STRIKE DOWN THAT STATUTE BASED ON A BILL TITLE DEFECT. THIS IS ALSO TRUE IN THE RECENT CASE OF OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. V. PHIL TODD. ET AL. NO. 72,490 (OKLA., JUNE 11, 1991). THEREFORE, ENFORCEMENT OF THIS PROVISION BY YOUR AGENCY IS PROPER.
(DIANE L. SLAYTON)