Court Opinion

ID: 9629422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:42:32.387521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:19.119016
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
As the majority opinion says, the only question presented by the record before us is the question of standing to sue. To answer that question, >ve must consider as true all of the allegations of the amended petition as a whole, and not merely the three isolated paragraphs quoted in the majority opinion. Needless to say, the question of the truth or falsity of the allegations is not before us at this time.
Although I agree with the holding of the majority that appellant does not have standing to sue the private charitable groups involved, I must respectfully disagree with the holding that she lacks standing to sue the State Commissioner of Health.
The holding is based upon a conclusion that the amended petition alleged only “non-expenditure irregularities” — a phrase that does not appear in the pleadings in the record before us.
In my view, taken as a whole, the amended petition plainly alleged that unlawful expenditures were involved. It alleges, in effect, (1) that Planned Parenthood is operating a Family Planning Center under a contract with the State Department of Health, and (2) that a part of its operations are in violation of law. I can find no basis in the amended petition for the conclusion that the unlawful part of the operation involves merely “non-expenditure irregularities”. Whatever Planned Parenthood does in the operation of the Family Planning Center — whether lawful or unlawful — is done pursuant to the contract with the State Department of Health, for which it receives a valuable consideration.
In the fourth paragraph of the majority opinion, it is said that “Planned Parenthood operates a Family Planning Center under a contract with the State Board of Health * * * ”, and in the next paragraph, as a specific example, the allegation that “ * * * Planned Parenthood distributed birth control information and services to minors in a manner prohibited by 63 O.S. Supp.1976, Sec. 2601, et seq”, is set out. The further conclusion, in the third paragraph of Part IV of the opinion, that the allegedly unlawful distribution of “birth control information and services” costs nothing and amounts only to “non-expenditure irregularities” is, to my mind, not justified by any of the language of the amended petition.
*764In my view, the holding of this Court in the previous opinion promulgated herein on March 14, 1978 (published at 49 OBJ 423), on the question of standing to sue the State Commissioner of Health, was correct and should be followed.
This Court has held that a resident taxpayer has an equitable ownership in funds in the State Treasury. See Vette v. Child-ers, et aL, 102 Okl. 140, 228 P. 145: In that case we reversed a judgment of the trial court dismissing an action by a private taxpayer for an order restraining the expenditure of public funds unconstitutionally appropriated by our Legislature, and remanded the case for further proceedings. In my view, basic principles of due process require that we do the same for the appellant in the case now before us. Unfortunately, the holding of the majority effectively closes the door to a taxpayer who is merely trying to prevent the unlawful expenditure of funds in which she has an equitable interest.
On the question of standing to sue the State Commissioner of Health, I therefore respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice DOOLIN concurs in the views herein above expressed.