Court Opinion

ID: 9629747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:48:16.500963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:23.129170
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Justice,
dissenting:
For reasons to be set out below, I am unable to agree with' the opinion of the majority in this case.
It says that Sec. 559 “attempts to direct courts in a matter of procedure ” (emphasis added), and holds that section unconstitutional as an abridgement of Art. IV, Sec. 1, Oklahoma Constitution, which provides for the separation of the powers of government, citing In re Bledsoe, 186 Okl. 264, 97 P.2d 556.
Bledsoe was a case in which this Court held that a legislative act requiring in effect that any graduate of an approved law school should be admitted to the practice of law without a bar examination was unconstitutional as “ * * * an invasion of the inherent power of this court to fix the maximum requirements for admission to the practice of law in this state * * *.” Needless to say, that question is not presented by the statute now under consideration.
The opinion also cites Jones v. Freeman, 193 Okl. 554, 146 P.2d 564, in which this Court held in effect that it had no power to reapportion the Legislature. This conclusion was obviously required by the detailed requirements then in our Constitution requiring the Legislature to reapportion itself. Of course there are no similar provisions in our Constitution reserving to the courts the unlimited power to decide which cases shall be consolidated for jury trial.
The opinion of the majority concedes that Sec. 559 concerns “a matter of procedure.” In Atchison, T. &. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Long, 122 Okl. 86, 251 P. 486, this Court said at page 489 of the Pacific Reporter “ * * * No one will deny that the legislative arm of the government has the power to alter and regulate the procedure in both law and equity matters.” (Emphasis added.)
It is well settled that the Legislature exercises the sovereign will unless restrained by the Constitution. Wiseman v. Boren, Okl., 545 P.2d 753; Spearman v. Williams, Okl., 415 P.2d 597; Draper v. State Board of Equalization, Okl., 414 P.2d 276.
The opinion of the majority also holds that Sec. 559 is unconstitutional because of the “unlimited original jurisdiction” granted to District Courts under Art. VII, Sec. 7, Oklahoma Constitution. If this procedural statute is unconstitutional for that reason, then literally dozens of sections of Title 12 (Civil Procedure) and Title 22 (Criminal Procedure), Oklahoma Statutes, are also unconstitutional.
I therefore respectfully dissent.