Opinion ID: 1389475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: a shared exercise of jurisdiction

Text: It has been suggested that this case is suitable for an exercise of shared cognizance by both court and agency. Some commentators have urged that we seize upon the opportunity and adopt here the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. [1] That doctrine is said to offer Oklahoma a solution to the problem of dichotomous court/agency jurisdiction which is much to be preferred over the current search for some elusive bright line of demarcation separating judicial from administrative competence. [2] The primary jurisdiction doctrine calls for judicial deference to administrative primacy over issues that lie within the special expertise or cognizance of an agency. When raised in a court action, these issues must be referred for agency resolution before the court may proceed to grant the judicial relief sought. There are several variations of this doctrine and scholars do not agree which of these is to be regarded as the orthodox version. [3] Institutional interplay of courts with agencies doubtless would be an improvement over the rigidity of maintaining two separately-structured jurisdictional corridors. But it would not dispense with having to draw a line of demarcation between district court issues and those lying within the exclusive cognizance of the Commission. That boundary is presently plagued by lack of an articulately defined location. [4] Because I find no court issues in this case but only matters exclusively within agency jurisdiction, there appears to be no basis for giving consideration to applying here the flexibility of institutional interplay provided by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.