Opinion ID: 2618323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the directive as an administrative act

Text: Lastly, if the chief justice's directive were to be viewed as an exercise of the Supreme Court's administrative power conferred upon it by Art. 7 § 6, Okl. Const., [26] then a district court suit to test the act's validity clearly was improper. Administrative orders lie dehors the district court's declaratory cognizance. 12 O.S. 1981 § 1657. [27] An administrative directive of the Supreme Court or of its chief justice may not be subjected to the same mode of court review as that prescribed by law for decisions in claims pressed in the general course of adjudicative process. Neither the procedural regime for nisi prius adjudication nor that for corrective relief from a nisi prius decision is applicable to managerial (administrative) acts performed by officials or institutions within the court system. [28] Review of an administrative decision made in the exercise of a district court's managerial function may be sought only through an original proceeding in the Supreme Court. [29] Similarly, management decisions by a chief justice are reviewable and correctable only by the Supreme Court sitting in its capacity as the administrative board of directors for the entire judicial system. Art. 7 § 6, Okl. Const. [30]