It shall be the duty of the Attorney General of this state, when directed by the Governor, or upon notice being received by the Attorney General in writing and verified by fifteen or more reputable citizens of the county or by one percent (1%) of the registered voters that voted in the previous election for the
political subdivision of which the officer who is the subject of the complaint is an official, whichever is greater, before some officer authorized to administer oaths, that any officer herein mentioned has been guilty of any of the acts, omissions or offenses as set out in Section 93 of this title, to investigate such complaint, and if on such investigation the Attorney General shall find that there is reasonable cause for such complaint, the Attorney General shall institute proceedings in the Supreme Court, or any district court of the county of the residence of the accused, to oust such officer from office. Added by Laws 1917, c. 205, p. 380, § 4, emerg. eff. Feb. 19, 1917. Amended by Laws 2004, c. 437, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Dutton v. City of Midwest City, 2015 OK 51, 353 P.3d 532.
“1971 § 1194, or by the Attorney General, 51 O.S.1971 §§ 94; judicial removal proceedings in all District Court proceedings for removal from office, no matter how instituted, the Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction on review and in original proceedings for a prerogative…”
Hale v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Seminole Cnty., 603 P.2d 761 (Okla. 1979).
“1971 § 1194, or by the Attorney General, 51 O.S.1971 § 94. Judicial removal proceedings before the Court on the Judiciary, though essentially “civil”, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of that court.”
Russell v. Henderson, 603 P.2d 1132 (Okla. 1979).
“This construction of the inquest-situs proviso in § 1182 would impart to grand jury ouster proceedings the very same venue regime as that provided for ousters by action, 51 O.S.1971 § 94, which is a cumulative remedy.”
Dutton v. City of Midwest City, 2015 OK 51.
· cites it 4× “1971 § 1194, or by the Attorney General, 51 O.S.1971 § 94; judicial removal proceedings in all District Court proceedings for removal from office, no matter how instituted , the Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction on review and in original proceedings for a prerogative…”
L'Acquarius v. Hampton, 642 P.2d 1143 (Okla. 1982).
“, at the direction of the Governor or upon notice in writing verified by five or more reputable citizens of the county.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.