Pack v. State, 112974.
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Citation | 330 P.3d 1216 |
| Docket Number | No. 112974.,112974. |
| Parties | Charles Edward PACK, II; Mara Novy; Leonardo De Andrade; Elizabeth Luecke; Nancy Kunsman; Heather Sparks; Leo J. Baxter; Amy Anne Ford; William F. Shdeed; and Daniel Keating, Petitioners, v. STATE of Oklahoma; President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate; Speaker of the House of Representatives; The Oklahoma State Department of Education, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 15 July 2014 |
330 P.3d 1216
Charles Edward PACK, II; Mara Novy; Leonardo De Andrade; Elizabeth Luecke; Nancy Kunsman; Heather Sparks; Leo J. Baxter; Amy Anne Ford; William F. Shdeed; and Daniel Keating, Petitioners,
v.
STATE of Oklahoma; President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate; Speaker of the House of Representatives; The Oklahoma State Department of Education, Respondents.
No. 112974.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
July 15, 2014.
PER CURIAM:
¶ 1 Having considered the application to assume original jurisdiction, petition for a writ, and request for declaratory relief along with the response thereto, the associated briefs of the parties, and all amici and other filings in the cause, THE COURT DETERMINES THAT:
1) We have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter and the issues are ripe for adjudication. Furthermore, the immediacy with which the school year will commence makes this an appropriate matter for the assumption of original jurisdiction. Oklahoma Farm Bureau v. State Bd. of Educ., 1968 OK 98, 444 P.2d 182.
2) HB 3399 does not violate art. 13, § 5 or art. 4, § 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
3) Having found HB 3399 constitutional, there is no need to address the issue of severability.
¶ 2 Original jurisdiction is assumed; HB 3399 is not unconstitutional under either art. 13, § 5 or art. 4, § 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution; and it is unnecessary to address the issue of severability.
COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR, COMBS, JJ., concur.GURICH, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Knight
...330 P.3d 1216STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant,v.David William KNIGHT, Respondent.No. SCBD–6142.Supreme Court of Oklahoma.July 16, [330 P.3d 1217]ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE.¶ 0 Pursuant to Rule 7.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Disciplinary Proceedi......
- State v. Faulkner
-
Teaching in the Upside Down: What Anti-Critical Race Theory Laws Tell Us About the First Amendment.
...school boards and from placing responsibility for the curriculum of each school district in the hands of each board."); Pack v. State, 330 P.3d 1216, 1216 (Okla. 2014) (mem.) (per curiam) (upholding an Oklahoma state law repealing Common Core standards under the state constitution); Hutchen......