legislative immunity in Oklahoma

1997In U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972), the Court notes that in every case that has come before it, “the Speech or Debate Clause has been limited to an act which was clearly a part of the legislative process — the due functioning of the process," citing “Kilboum ... [supra] (voting for a resolution); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (harassment of witness by state legislator during a legislative hearing is not within the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 749 , 1

1997In U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972), the Court notes that in every case that has come before it, “the Speech or Debate Clause has been limited to an act which was clearly a part of the legislative process — the due functioning of the process," citing “Kilboum ... [supra] (voting for a resolution); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (harassment of witness by state legislator during a legislative hearing is not within the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 749 , 1

1997In U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972), the Court notes that in every case that has come before it, “the Speech or Debate Clause has been limited to an act which was clearly a part of the legislative process — the due functioning of the process," citing “Kilboum ... [supra] (voting for a resolution); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (harassment of witness by state legislator during a legislative hearing is not within the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 749 , 1

1997In U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972), the Court notes that in every case that has come before it, “the Speech or Debate Clause has been limited to an act which was clearly a part of the legislative process — the due functioning of the process," citing “Kilboum ... [supra] (voting for a resolution); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (harassment of witness by state legislator during a legislative hearing is not within the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 749 , 1

1997In the same footnote the Court observes that an early Massachusetts case (Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1 (1808)) holds “the state equivalent of the Speech or Debate Clause ... [is] inapplicable to a legislator who was acting outside of his official duties.” See also Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. Ill, 133, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979) (in a libel suit against a United States senator the court held that the senator’s press releases and newsletters were not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause). 30 .

1997In the same footnote the Court observes that an early Massachusetts case (Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1 (1808)) holds “the state equivalent of the Speech or Debate Clause ... [is] inapplicable to a legislator who was acting outside of his official duties.” See also Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. Ill, 133, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979) (in a libel suit against a United States senator the court held that the senator’s press releases and newsletters were not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause). 30 .

2004We said that they had a burden of showing they had a clear right to reinstatement; i.e., the petitioners were required to present facts showing that their removal was not based upon a good and sufficient cause. ¶ 27 In Hall v. Tirey, 1972 OK 118 , 501 P.2d 496 , we explained that an official seeking reinstatement to office via mandamus had the burden "to prove that his removal did not comply with the legislative standard." Id. at ¶ 20, 501 P.2d at 502 .

2004We said that they had a burden of showing they had a clear right to reinstatement; i.e., the petitioners were required to present facts showing that their removal was not based upon a good and sufficient cause. ¶ 27 In Hall v. Tirey, 1972 OK 118 , 501 P.2d 496 , we explained that an official seeking reinstatement to office via mandamus had the burden "to prove that his removal did not comply with the legislative standard." Id. at ¶ 20, 501 P.2d at 502 .

1997In the same footnote the Court observes that an early Massachusetts case (Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1 (1808)) holds “the state equivalent of the Speech or Debate Clause ... [is] inapplicable to a legislator who was acting outside of his official duties.” See also Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. Ill, 133, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979) (in a libel suit against a United States senator the court held that the senator’s press releases and newsletters were not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause). 30 .

1997In U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972), the Court notes that in every case that has come before it, “the Speech or Debate Clause has been limited to an act which was clearly a part of the legislative process — the due functioning of the process," citing “Kilboum ... [supra] (voting for a resolution); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (harassment of witness by state legislator during a legislative hearing is not within the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 749 , 1

1997In U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972), the Court notes that in every case that has come before it, “the Speech or Debate Clause has been limited to an act which was clearly a part of the legislative process — the due functioning of the process," citing “Kilboum ... [supra] (voting for a resolution); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (harassment of witness by state legislator during a legislative hearing is not within the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 749 , 1

1993Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 , 108 S.Ct. 538, 542 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988), citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622-627 , 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2625-2687 , 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 123-133 , 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2682-2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979); Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 , 93 S.Ct. 2018 , 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1973); Johnson, supra note 24 at 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 754 , Kilbourn, supra note 24 at 103 U.S. 168, 204 .

1993Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 , 108 S.Ct. 538, 542 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988), citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622-627 , 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2625-2687 , 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 123-133 , 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2682-2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979); Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 , 93 S.Ct. 2018 , 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1973); Johnson, supra note 24 at 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 754 , Kilbourn, supra note 24 at 103 U.S. 168, 204 .

1993Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 , 108 S.Ct. 538, 542 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988), citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622-627 , 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2625-2687 , 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 123-133 , 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2682-2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979); Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 , 93 S.Ct. 2018 , 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1973); Johnson, supra note 24 at 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 754 , Kilbourn, supra note 24 at 103 U.S. 168, 204 .

1993Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 , 108 S.Ct. 538, 542 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988), citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622-627 , 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2625-2687 , 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 123-133 , 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2682-2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979); Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 , 93 S.Ct. 2018 , 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1973); Johnson, supra note 24 at 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 754 , Kilbourn, supra note 24 at 103 U.S. 168, 204 .

1993Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 , 108 S.Ct. 538, 542 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988), citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622-627 , 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2625-2687 , 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 123-133 , 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2682-2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979); Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 , 93 S.Ct. 2018 , 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1973); Johnson, supra note 24 at 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 754 , Kilbourn, supra note 24 at 103 U.S. 168, 204 .

1993Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 , 108 S.Ct. 538, 542 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988), citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622-627 , 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2625-2687 , 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 123-133 , 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2682-2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979); Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 , 93 S.Ct. 2018 , 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1973); Johnson, supra note 24 at 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 754 , Kilbourn, supra note 24 at 103 U.S. 168, 204 .

1993Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 , 108 S.Ct. 538, 542 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988), citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622-627 , 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2625-2687 , 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 123-133 , 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2682-2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979); Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 , 93 S.Ct. 2018 , 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1973); Johnson, supra note 24 at 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 754 , Kilbourn, supra note 24 at 103 U.S. 168, 204 .

1993Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 , 108 S.Ct. 538, 542 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988), citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622-627 , 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2625-2687 , 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 123-133 , 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2682-2687 , 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979); Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 , 93 S.Ct. 2018 , 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 , 92 S.Ct. 2531 , 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1973); Johnson, supra note 24 at 383 U.S. 169 , 86 S.Ct. 754 , Kilbourn, supra note 24 at 103 U.S. 168, 204 .

1993Carter Oil 296 P. at 488-89 .

1982Counsel for petitioners argued that the foregoing statute is merely a procedural change and is not intended to be a legislative presumption for denial of bail; and, that in the event said statute is a presumption for denial of bail, it is unconstitutional for vagueness because of a lack of guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of fact in order to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of a criminal statute, citing Smith v. Goguen, 314 U.S. 566 , 94 S.Ct. 1242 , 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974).

1982Counsel for petitioners argued that the foregoing statute is merely a procedural change and is not intended to be a legislative presumption for denial of bail; and, that in the event said statute is a presumption for denial of bail, it is unconstitutional for vagueness because of a lack of guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of fact in order to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of a criminal statute, citing Smith v. Goguen, 314 U.S. 566 , 94 S.Ct. 1242 , 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974).

1968Upon authority of Oliver v. Oklahoma Al *187 coholic Beverage Control Board, Okl., 359 P.2d 183 , and decisions there reviewed, petitioners urge the legislative authority-granted the State Board to control and supervise public school systems, subject to limitations otherwise provided, did not authorize the Board’s establishment of accreditation standards different from those set by the Legislature.

1960The Supreme Court of Oregon has passed on this question in the cases of Stevens v. Benson, 50 Or. 269 , 91 P. 577 , and Palmer v. Benson, 50 Or. 277 , 91 P. 579 .

1960The Supreme Court of Oregon has passed on this question in the cases of Stevens v. Benson, 50 Or. 269 , 91 P. 577 , and Palmer v. Benson, 50 Or. 277 , 91 P. 579 .

1960The Supreme Court of Oregon has passed on this question in the cases of Stevens v. Benson, 50 Or. 269 , 91 P. 577 , and Palmer v. Benson, 50 Or. 277 , 91 P. 579 .

1960The Supreme Court of Oregon has passed on this question in the cases of Stevens v. Benson, 50 Or. 269 , 91 P. 577 , and Palmer v. Benson, 50 Or. 277 , 91 P. 579 .