Oklahoma State Senate Ex Rel. Roberts v. Hetherington

868 P.2d 708, 1994 WL 34037
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 17, 1994
Docket82716
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 868 P.2d 708 (Oklahoma State Senate Ex Rel. Roberts v. Hetherington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Oklahoma State Senate Ex Rel. Roberts v. Hetherington, 868 P.2d 708, 1994 WL 34037 (Okla. 1994).

Opinion

ORDER

HODGES, Chief Justice.

On consideration of the paperwork on file and of the proceedings before its referee, the court finds and orders as follows:

(1) It takes original cognizance of this proceeding to decide whether in Cause No. CJ-93-1940-BH, styled Alfred Ray Carter, petitioner v. Robert V. Cullison, President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma Senate, and Glen D. Johnson, Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, as representatives of the Oklahoma Legislature, et al., respondents, on the docket of the District Court, Cleveland County, the respondent judge must reach for consideration the claim to absolute immunity 1 of the two legislative leaders named as parties to the suit, who are leaders of the two lawmaking bodies, not only from the consequences of this litigation’s result but also from the burden of defending'themselves. 2

(2) The court answers the tendered question in the affirmative and holds that because it is apparent from the face of the pleadings below that the named legislative leaders are being haled into court for acts or omissions that occurred while they were acting within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity” 3 the immunity claim is sustainable and the legislators are hereby ordered dismissed as parties defendant to the action.

(3)Acting sua sponte, the court further directs that the action below be dismissed because the petition, and other instruments, on file facially demonstrate that the petitioner therein invokes the declaratory .judgment remedy to launch an impermissible collateral attack upon the judgment and sentence in a criminal ease. 4

SIMMS, HARGRAVE, OPALA, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur. LAVENDER, V.C.J., concurs in result.
1

. Art. 5, § 22, Okl. Const., provides:

"Senators and Representatives shall, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the session of the Legislature,, and in going to and returning from the same, and, for any speech or debate in either House, shall not be questioned in any other place." (Emphasis supplied.)
2

. Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85, 87 S.Ct. 1425, 1427, 18 L.Ed.2d 577 (1967); U.S. v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 366-67, 100 S.Ct. 1185, 1190, 63 L.Ed.2d 454 (1980).

3

. Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 311-12, 93 S.Ct. 2018, 2024, 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973). See also Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 236 n. 11, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 2272, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979); Ethics Com'n v. Cullison, Okl., 850 P.2d 1069, 1083-85 (1993) (Opala, J., concurring).

4

. See in this connection Anderson v. Trimble, Okl., 519 P.2d 1352, 1355-56 (1974); Walters v. Oklahoma Ethics Com’n, Okl., 746 P.2d 172, 179-184 (1987) (Opala, J., concurring).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

NICHOLSON v. STITT
2022 OK 35 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2022)
DUTTON v. CITY OF MIDWEST CITY
2015 OK 51 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2015)
Leftwich v. Alcorn
2011 OK CR 27 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 2011)
Easterwood v. Choctaw County Dist. Attorney
2002 OK CIV APP 41 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
868 P.2d 708, 1994 WL 34037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oklahoma-state-senate-ex-rel-roberts-v-hetherington-okla-1994.