Weddington v. Henry
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Citation | Weddington v. Henry, 2008 OK 102, 202 P.3d 143 (Okla. 2008) |
| Decision Date | 24 November 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 106,330.,106,330. |
| Parties | Ben A. WEDDINGTON, Jerry Balentine, and Johnathan Reiff, Petitioners, v. Brad HENRY, Governor of the State of Oklahoma, et al., Respondents. |
ORDER
The legislation challenged in this original proceeding, identified as Senate Bill 1708, passed by the 51st Legislature, second session on May 23, 2008, and signed into law by the Governor on June 3, 2008, is facially contrary to the Oklahoma Constitution, Article V, Section 57. The entire measure is declared unconstitutional and void. Fent v. State ex rel. Office of State Finance, 2008 OK 2, 184 P.3d 467.
/s/ James E. Edmondson
VICE CHIEF JUSTICE
"I concede that the legislation sought to be invalidated is unconstitutional in part but not in toto."
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
4 cases
-
Douglas v. Cox Ret. Props., Inc.
...drafting of a broad topic” defeats the purpose of the single-subject rule. Id. We reaffirmed such an approach in Weddington v. Henry, 2008 OK 102, 202 P.3d 143, where we struck down a bill whose subject was “uniform laws.” In Fent v. State ex rel. Okla. Capitol Improvement Auth., 2009 OK 15......
-
Fent v. State ex rel. Ocia
...of this cause.22 ¶ 18 Our recent cases in which we addressed multi-subject legislation provide guidance. In Weddington v. Henry, 2008 OK 102, ¶ 1, 202 P.3d 143, we struck down a nearly 300 page statute which provided for amendments, modifications, and adoptions of various uniform laws. The ......
-
Nova Health Systems v. Edmondson, 2010 OK 21 (Okla. 3/2/2010)
...OK 104, ¶ 1, 49 P.3d 687; In re Initiative Petition No. 382, State Question No. 729, 2006 OK 45, ¶ 18, 142 P.3d 400; Weddington v. Henry, 2008 OK 102, ¶ 1, 202 P.3d 143; Fent v. State ex rel. Office of State Finance, 2008 OK 2, ¶ 30, 184 P.3d 467; and Fent v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklah......
-
Southlake Equip. Co. v. Gravel
...date amended to January 1, 2010, by Laws 2008, SB 1708, c. 382, § 315; Laws 2008, c. 382 held unconstitutional by Weddington v. Henry, 2008 OK 102, 202 P.3d 143). 2. Debtor's voting interest will be discussed ...
1 books & journal articles
-
THE SINGLE-SUBJECT RULE: A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL DILEMMA.
...4, 233 P.3d at 382 (citing Fent v. State ex rel. Okla. Capital Improvement Auth., 2009 OK 15, [paragraph] 1, 214 P.3d 799; Weddington v. Henry, 2008 OK 102, [paragraph] 1, 202 P.3d 143, 144; Fent v. State ex rel. Office of State Fin., 2008 OK 2, [paragraph] 30, 184 P.3d 467; 478; In re Init......
