Shaw v. Grumbine

83 Citing cases

  1. Inst. for Responsible Alcohol Policy v. State

    2020 OK 5 (Okla. 2020)   Cited 5 times

    ¶12 The objective of construing the Oklahoma Constitution is to give effect to the framers' intent, as well as the people adopting it. Shaw v. Grumbine , 1929 OK 116, ¶ 30, 278 P. 311, 315, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311. When a challenge is limited to the Oklahoma Constitution, the Court looks first to its language, which if unambiguous, binds the Court.

  2. Drummond v. Okla. Statewide Virtual Charter Sch. Bd.

    2024 OK 53 (Okla. 2024)

    is to give effect to the framers' intent, as well as the people adopting it. Shaw v. Grumbine, 1929 OK 116, ¶ 30, 278 P. 311, 315 (quoting Lake Cty. v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662 (1889)).

  3. Heath v. Guardian Interlock Network, Inc.

    369 P.3d 374 (Okla. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    Estes v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2008 OK 21, ¶ 16, 184 P.3d 518.Keating v. Edmondson, see note 9, supra; Wiseman v. Boren, 1976 OK 2, ¶ 10, 545 P.2d 753 ; Shaw v. Grumbine, 1929 OK 116, ¶ 0, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311. The Oklahoma Attorney General argues that Heath's interpretation of the statute is economically infeasible, making it a nullity.

  4. Prescott v. Okla. Capitol Pres. Comm'n

    2015 OK 54 (Okla. 2015)   Cited 4 times

    Okla. Const. art. I, § 1. The objective of construing the Oklahoma Constitution is to give effect to the framers' intent, as well as the people adopting it. Shaw v. Grumbine, 1929 OK 116, ¶ 30, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311, 315 (quoting Lake Cnty. v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 9 S.Ct. 651, 32 L.Ed. 1060 (1889) ). When a challenge is limited to the Oklahoma Constitution, we look first to its language, which if unambiguous, binds this Court; and we “are not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument.”

  5. Davis v. Thompson

    1986 OK 38 (Okla. 1986)   Cited 8 times
    In Davis v. Thompson, 721 P.2d 789 (Okla. 1986), the minority leader of the Oklahoma House of Representatives challenged legislation adopted after midnight on the 90th legislative day. A four judge plurality of the court agreed that a legislative day was not synonymous with a calendar day for purposes of the then existing Oklahoma constitutional provision limiting legislative sessions to "ninety legislative days."

    If the words convey a definite meaning which involves no absurdity, nor any contradiction of other parts of the instrument, then that meaning, apparent on the face of the instrument, must be accepted, and neither the courts nor the Legislature have the right to add to it or take from it'" Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311 315 (1929) (quoting Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 9 S.Ct. 651, 32 L.Ed. 1060 (1889)). Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311 315 (1929) (quoting Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 9 S.Ct. 651, 32 L.Ed. 1060 (1889)).

  6. Texas Co. v. State ex Rel. Coryell

    198 Okla. 565 (Okla. 1947)   Cited 22 times
    In Texas Co. v. State, supra [ 198 Okla. 565, 180 P.2d 639], the State sought to escheat various tracts owned in fee by The Texas Company, some of the land being held for the production of oil and gas, some for operation of gasoline plants, and buildings for the occupancy of employees.

    "Courts, in construing unambiguous constitutional provisions, are not at liberty to search for meaning beyond the instrument . . . Meaning of Constitution, apparent on face, must be accepted." Shaw v. Crumbine, 137 Okla. 95. 278 P. 311; State v. Millar, 21 Okla. 448, 96 P. 747. The trial court erred in construing the further exception as a limitation upon the initial prohibition.

  7. Opinion No. 69-203

    Opinion No. 69-203 (1969) AG (Ops.Okla.Atty.Gen. May. 20, 1969)

    Attorney General Opinion No. 67-392 concluded that the Board of County Commissioners can agree unanimously to delegate supervision of road building and maintenance in one district to a commissioner of another district. You then, in effect, ask: In light of the repeal of 69 O.S. 292 [69-292] (1961), does the majority of the Board of County Commissioners have the authority and power to make a division of the County for purposes of road supervision? It is a well recognized principle of law, as stated in the eleventh paragraph of the syllabus of Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Ok 1. 95, 278 P. 311 (1929), that: "Public officers have only such authority as is conferred upon them by law, and such authority must be. exercised in the manner prescribed by law." See also, Brown v. State Election Board, Okl., 369 P.2d 140 (1962).

  8. Keating v. Edmondson

    2001 OK 110 (Okla. 2001)   Cited 96 times
    Explaining that "shall" "signifies a mandatory directive or command"

    Chamberlain v. American Airlines, 1987 OK 62, ¶ 15, 740 P.2d 717; City of Bethany v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 1948 OK 38, ¶ 16, 191 P.2d 187; City of Bristow v. Groom, 1944 OK 223, ¶ 11, 151 P.2d 936.Wiseman v. Boren, 1976 OK 2, ¶ 10, 545 P.2d 753; Shaw v.Grumbine, 1929 OK 116, ¶ 0, 278 P. 311. ¶ 15 Our determination that the language of 74 O.S. 1991 § 10.3[ 74-10.3] (A) is clear and unambiguous makes it unnecessary to address the other construction-based arguments proffered by the Governor.

  9. Lepak v. McClain

    1992 OK 166 (Okla. 1992)   Cited 9 times

    Morgan v. National Bank of Commerce of Shawnee, 90 Okla. 280, 217 P. 388, 389 (1923).Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311 (1929). Constitutional provisions are mandatory, unless it appears from the express terms thereof, or by necessary implication from the language used, that they are intended to be directory only.

  10. In re Initiative Petition No. 349

    1992 OK 122 (Okla. 1992)   Cited 57 times
    Holding unconstitutional initiative effort to ban previability nontherapeutic abortions except in cases of rape, incest, grave physical or mental defect of the fetus, or grave impairment of mother's physical or mental health

    And, when asked to construe a provision of our state constitution, the facially apparent meaning must be accepted by this Court. Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311 (Okla. 1929). Okla. Const., art. II, § 1 provides: