Okla. Stat. » Title 73 — STATE CAPITAL AND CAPITOL BUILDING
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 73, § 160 (2026)

Approval of bonds by Supreme Court

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority may file an application with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for the approval of bonds issued hereunder, and exclusive original jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the Supreme Court to hear and determine each application. The court shall give the applications precedence over the other business of the court and consider and pass upon the applications and any protests which may be filed thereto as speedily as possible. Notice of the hearing on each application shall be

given by notice published in a newspaper of general circulation in the state that on a day named the Authority will ask the court to hear its application and approve the bonds. The notice shall inform all persons interested that they may file protests against the issuance of the bonds and be present at the hearing and contest the legality thereof. The notice shall be published one time not less than ten (10) days prior to the date named for the hearing and the hearing may be adjourned from time to time in the discretion of the court. If the court shall be satisfied that the bonds or any portions thereof have been properly authorized in accordance with this act and the Constitution of Oklahoma, and that when issued they will constitute valid obligations in accordance with their terms, the court shall render its written opinion approving the bonds and shall fix the time within which a petition for rehearing may be filed. The decision of the court shall be a judicial determination of the validity of the bonds, shall be conclusive as to the Authority, the State of Oklahoma, its officers, agents and instrumentalities, and all other persons, and thereafter the bonds so approved and the rents and revenues pledged to their payment shall be incontestable in any court in the State of Oklahoma. Added by Laws 1959, p. 253, § 10, emerg. eff. June 27, 1959. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 481, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case: In re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 1998 OK 25, 958 P.2d 759.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 1998 OK 25, 958 P.2d 759. · cites it 3× “Under 73 O.S.1991 § 160, 7 this Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to determine the validity of bond issues proposed by the Capitol Improvement Authority.”
Fent v. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 1999 OK 64, 984 P.2d 200. · cites it 2× “*203 PER CURIAM: ¶ 1 Under 73 O.S.1991, § 160, this Court is given exclusive original jurisdiction to determine the validity of bond issues proposed by respondent, Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority (OCIA).”
In re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 2003 OK 59, 80 P.3d 109. · cites it 2× “[3] Article 10, § 16 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides: "All laws authorizing the borrowing of money by and on behalf of the State, county, or other political subdivision of the State, shall specify the purpose for which the money is to be used, and the money so borrowed…”
In the Matter of the Application of the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 2022 OK 31, 507 P.3d 1256. · cites it 6× “3d 1232 FOOTNOTES 73 O.S.2021 § 160 20 O.S.2021 § 14.1 The Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority may file an application with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for the approval of bonds issued hereunder, and exclusive original jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the Supreme Court…”
In re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 1998 OK 25, 964 P.2d 873. · cites it 2× “[Title 73 O.S.1991 § 160.] 6) Court rules do not provide for the stay of mandate in original proceedings.”
In re the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 2003 OK 85, 80 P.3d 131. “¶3 Pursuant to 73 O.S.2001, § 160, the OCIA filed an application in this Court seeking approval of the proposed $5.”
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.