Opinion ID: 1234861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the court's assumption of original cognizance for consideration of a single issue

Text: Petitioner Howard Hendrick [Petitioner or the Senator] tenders a public-law controversy the resolution of which will determine the legitimacy of the governor's incumbency and settle the issue whether public officials are required to take an oath in the form prescribed by the provisions of 51 O.S. 1961 § 2. Generally, forfeiture of office may be pressed in a civil action which does not depend upon any particular remedial variant and can be accommodated by judicial determination [6] within the framework of any suitable rubric. [7] Since a forfeiture cannot be remitted by the Legislature, a judicial declaration of whether one has occurred is imperative. Art. V, § 46, Okl. Const. [8] We have chosen the method most effective procedurally, isolating for consideration and decision a single issue which  although not in the precise form advanced by Petitioner  is dispositive of this public-law controversy and will put to rest any concerns articulated by the parties. [9] We hence take today original cognizance of this justiciable controversy in which no other court can afford speedy and adequate relief. [10]