Associated Ind. of Okla. v. Ind. Welfare

41 Citing cases

  1. Schmitt v. Hunt

    1960 OK 257 (Okla. 1961)   Cited 18 times
    In Schmitt v. Hunt,359 P.2d 198, 201 (Okla. 1960), the Supreme Court observed that in selecting persons for public service, examination for merit and fitness is appropriate and "[t]he main consideration in the selection of officers and agents is the public welfare."

    While we have not previously considered the validity of this Act, we have heretofore considered in other cases many of the legal problems presented and argued in this case. In Associated Industries of Oklahoma et al. v. Industrial Welfare Commission et al., 185 Okla. 177, 90 P.2d 899, 901, the fourth paragraph of the syllabus is as follows: "Power to determine the policy of the law is primarily legislative, and cannot be delegated whereas the power to make rules of a subordinate character in order to carry out that policy and apply it to varying conditions, although partaking of a legislative character, is in its dominant aspect administrative and can be delegated."

  2. Gibson Products Co. v. Murphy

    100 P.2d 453 (Okla. 1940)   Cited 46 times

    The purpose of the constitutional provision, supra, regarding title is to put both the individual legislator and the people on notice as to legislation. Associated Industries, etc., v. Industrial Welfare Comm., 185 Okla. 177, 90 P.2d 899. That purpose was subserved by the title now considered. The Supreme Court of Tennessee recently so held in a very similar issue where it was contended a statute providing unemployment compensation was broader than its title.

  3. State v. Parham

    1966 OK 9 (Okla. 1966)   Cited 41 times
    Upholding validity of statutory authorization to liquor board to promulgate rules "`to supervise, inspect, and regulate every phase of the business of manufacturing, importing, exporting, transporting, storing, selling, distributing, and possessing for the purpose of sale, all alcoholic beverages'"

    It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the power to determine the policy of the law is primarily legislative and cannot be delegated, whereas the power to make rules of a subordinate character in order to carry out that policy and apply it to varying conditions, although partaking of a legislative character, is in its dominant aspect administrative and can be delegated. Associated Industries v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 185 Okla. 177, 90 P.2d 899; Atchley v. Board of Barber Examiners, 208 Okla. 453, 257 P.2d 302; Schmitt v. Hunt, Okla., 359 P.2d 198. The general rule is that if the statute involved lays down the policy of the Legislature and establishes a standard or guideline for administrative action, the delegation is proper. Ex Parte Herrin, 67 Okla. Cr. 104, 93 P.2d 21; Ludwig v. Yancey, Okla., 318 P.2d 450.

  4. Bailey v. State Board of Public Affairs

    194 Okla. 495 (Okla. 1944)   Cited 27 times
    In Bailey, the Oklahoma Supreme Court considered the validity of a statute which authorized the State Board of Public Affairs to transfer functions, inmates, funds and personnel from one state penal or eleemosynary institution to another.

    See, also, 11 Am. Jur. 881, note 11. One of the best statements of the rule as to what power may or may not be delegated by the Legislature is found in Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Clinton County Com'rs (1852) 1 Ohio St. 77, at 88, quoted with approval in Associated Industries v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 185 Okla. 177, 90 P.2d 899, as follows: "The true distinction, therefore, is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.

  5. Excise Board, Washita County, v. Lowden

    116 P.2d 700 (Okla. 1941)   Cited 21 times
    In Excise Board of Washita County v. Lowden, 189 Okla. 286, 116 P.2d 700, we said that the title to an act of the Legislature must be construed with reference to the language used in it alone and not in the light of what the body of the act contains.

    (c) The title must be construed with reference to the language used in it alone and not in the light of what the body of the act contains. Associated Industries of Oklahoma et al. v. Industrial Welfare Commission et al., 185 Okla. 177, 90 P.2d 899. 4. COUNTIES — Federal census of 1930 sole guide in determining population and classification of Washita county for payment of salaries.

  6. People v. Johnson

    42 Cal.App.2d 827 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)   Cited 3 times

    Here was no arbitrary discretion reposed in the commission; its duty was to see that all wages should meet the statutory requirement. (See Associated Industries v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1939), 185 Okl. 177 [ 90 P.2d 899, 906], where a like construction was put upon a substantially identical statute.) Order No. 10A, on which this prosecution is based, manifestly is not such an order as is authorized by the statute.

  7. Opinion No. 88-20

    Opinion No. 88-20 (1988) (Ops.Okla.Atty.Gen. Nov. 7, 1988)

    ¶ 14 You ask next whether the Legislature's authorization to the Board to adopt criteria for the selection of persons or business enterprises who will be permitted to contract with the Authority for the tax credits and put options set forth in the Act constitutes an unlawful delegation of authority. The general rule followed in Oklahoma regarding the Legislature's power to delegate its authority is expressed in Associated Industries of Oklahoma v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 90 P.2d 899 (Okla. 1939), where the Court held, in paragraph four of the Syllabus by the Court: Power to determine the policy of the law is primarily legislative, and cannot be delegated whereas the power to make rules of a subordinate character in order to carry out that policy and apply it to varying conditions, although partaking of a legislative character, is in its dominant aspect administrative and can be delegated.

  8. Hill v. Am. Med. Response

    2018 OK 57 (Okla. 2018)   Cited 19 times
    In Hill v. American Medical Response, 2018 OK 57, ¶ 1, 423 P.3d 1119, 1123, this court upheld the mandatory use of guidelines established by the American Medical Association for assessing impairment for non-scheduled members set forth in 85A O.S.Supp.2013, § 45, referencing the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Sixth Ed.

    This legislative authority to determine law and policy is distinct from the power to make rules of a subordinate character to carry them out, and it cannot be delegated. Associated Indus. of Okla. v. Indus. Welfare Com'n , 1939 OK 155, ¶ 16, 185 Okla. 177, 90 P.2d 899. SeeTulsa County Deputy Sheriff's Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge Num. 188 v. Bd. of County Com'rs of Tulsa County , 2000 OK 2, ¶ 9, 995 P.2d 1124 ; Isaacs v. Okla. City , 1966 OK 267, ¶¶ 10-11, 437 P.2d 229. However, where a law does not actually delegate authority, there is no violation of the above-noted non-delegation doctrine.

  9. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla. v. Lucas

    297 P.3d 378 (Okla. 2013)   Cited 41 times
    Explaining that a motion to dismiss based solely upon a jurisdictional ground is not converted to one for summary judgment by reliance upon matters outside the pleadings, but a 2012(B) motion is so converted when reliance is made upon matters outside the pleadings, and an adjudication in the form of summary judgment is on the merits of a controversy.

    Union Indemnity Co. v. Saling, 1933 OK 481, 26 P.2d 217, 221–222 (“It may be safely stated as a general rule that the provisions of our Constitution require that the decisions of administrative boards especially on questions of law be subject to judicial review ... This rule, however, is subject to exceptions and qualifications....”). Cf. Associated Industries of Oklahoma v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 1939 OK 155, 185 Okla. 177, 90 P.2d 899, 901, (Syllabus by the Court), (“Due process of law requires an opportunity for judicial review of administrative orders establishing minimum wages and maximum hours of employment for the purpose of determining whether such orders are within the reasonable limits of administrative discretion and are confiscatory in their application.”).In State ex rel. Westbrook v. Oklahoma Public Welfare Commission, 1946 OK 95, 167 P.2d 71, 72–73, we relied upon a right-privilege dichotomy for the principle that an administrative agency may possess final authority to decide an issue without judicial review.

  10. Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation v. Warren

    1998 OK 133 (Okla. 1998)   Cited 7 times

    However, a presumptively valid statute may result in an unconstitutional application to a particular person. ¶ 26 In Associated Industries of Oklahoma, et al. V. Industrial Welfare Commission, et al., 185 Okla. 177, 90 P.2d 899 (1939), this Court held in Syllabus 1: "If a legislative act is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which would render the act valid, while the other would subject it to grave doubts upon constitutional grounds, that construction should be adopted which renders the act valid, and frees it from doubts on constitutional considerations." Following the rationale of Associated Industries, we do not in this case hold the preclusive provision of OSDA to be unconstitutional.