Court Opinion

ID: 9547001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:39:42.162375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:11.034739
License: Public Domain

O’NEAL, J.
(specially concurring). The opinion in this case is based on the decision of this court in National Bank of Tulsa Building v. Goldsmith, 204 Okla. 45, 226 P. 2d 916. I dissented in that case, the reason for my dissent being I think House Bill No. 234 *334of the Legislature of 1947 is unconstitutional in its entirety. The majority of the court held the provisions of the act are severable and Sections 2 and 3 are constitutional. Although I am still of the opinion the act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the holding of the majority of the court in the Goldsmith case is now the law; therefore, I concur in the opinion in this case.