Hunsucker v. Fallin, 103017 OKSC, 116131

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Judge Panel:COMBS, C.J.; KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, COLBERT, and REIF, JJ., concur. GURICH, V.C.J.; and WYRICK, J., dissent.
Party Name:JOHN HUNSUCKER, on behalf of himself and his clients; BRUCE EDGE, on behalf of himself and his clients; CHARLES SIFERS, on behalf of himself and his clients; STEPHAN FABIAN, on behalf of himself and his clients, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE MARY FALLIN, GOVERNOR, in her official capacity; THE HONORABLE SENATOR MIKE SCHULTZ, SENATE PRESIDENT PR...
Case Date:October 30, 2017
Docket Nº:116131
 
FREE EXCERPT

2017 OK 84

JOHN HUNSUCKER, on behalf of himself and his clients; BRUCE EDGE, on behalf of himself and his clients; CHARLES SIFERS, on behalf of himself and his clients; STEPHAN FABIAN, on behalf of himself and his clients, Petitioners,

v.

THE HONORABLE MARY FALLIN, GOVERNOR, in her official capacity; THE HONORABLE SENATOR MIKE SCHULTZ, SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, in his official capacity; THE HONORABLE REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES MCCALL, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, in his official capacity; MICHAEL THOMPSON, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Oklahoma Department of Public Safety; DAVID PRATER, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Oklahoma County; STEVE KUNZWEILER, in his official capacity as District Attorney for Tulsa County; Respondents.

No. 116131

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

October 30, 2017

         ¶0 ORDER STAYING APPLICATION OF THE 2017 IMPAIRED DRIVING ELIMINATION ACT 2, S.B. No. 643

         ¶1 Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the 2017 Impaired Driving Elimination Act 2, (S.B. No. 643). The effective date for all provisions of this Act is scheduled for November 1, 2017.

         ¶2 The Court possesses judicial discretion to grant temporary relief or relief on the merits, with an opinion to follow, in order to protect the rights of parties pending resolution of a judicial controversy when a short period of time occurs between oral argument and the time an event will occur concerning the merits of the controversy. In re Initiative Petition No. 314, 1980 OK 174, 625 P.2d 595, 596; Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 1994 OK 142, 897 P.2d 1116, 1118-1119.

         ¶3 ...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP