Presumption of validity - Burden of proof when rule appealed - Declaratory judgment. A. The validity or applicability of a rule may be determined in an action for declaratory judgment in the district court of the county of the residence of the person seeking relief or, at the option of such person, in the county wherein the rule is sought to be applied, if it is alleged the rule, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of the plaintiff. B. The agency shall be made a party to the action. C. Rules promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act are presumed to be valid until declared otherwise by a district court of this state or the Supreme Court. When a rule is appealed pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act it shall be the duty of the promulgating agency to show and bear the burden of proof to show: 1. that the agency possessed the authority to promulgate the rule; 2. that the rule is consistent with any statute authorizing or controlling its issuance and does not exceed statutory authority; 3. that the rule is not violative of any other applicable statute or the Constitution; and 4. that the laws and administrative rules relating to the adoption, review and promulgation of such rules were faithfully followed. The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to impair the power and duty of the Attorney General to review such rules and regulations and issue advisory opinions thereon. D. A declaratory judgment may be rendered whether or not the plaintiff has requested the agency to pass upon the validity or applicability of the rule in question. Laws 1963, c. 371, § 6; Laws 1977, c. 114, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1977; Laws 1987, c. 207, § 17.
Notes of Decisions
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-20 of Muskogee Cnty. v. Oklahoma State Dep't of Educ., 65 P.3d 612 (Okla. 2003).
· cites it 7× “We recognized that after an agency’s adoption of an Attorney General’s advice as a basis for its standard of legal conduct, the procedural remedy of a declaratory-relief suit afforded by the Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S.2001 § 306 56 was available to test the validity…”
DuLaney v. Oklahoma State Dep't of Health, 868 P.2d 676 (Okla. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The action was brought pursuant to the declaratory judgment provision of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (Administrative Procedures Act), 75 O.S.Supp. 1987 § 306. [4] The adjacent landowners and mineral interest owners sought a judgment declaring rules promulgated by…”
Grand River Dam Auth. v. State, 645 P.2d 1011 (Okla. 1982).
· cites it 3× “Appellant sought to convince the court that the special venue provision in 75 O.S.Supp.1977 § 306 should govern the case.”
Walters v. Oklahoma Ethics Comm'n, 746 P.2d 172 (Okla. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Title 75 O.S.1981 § 306 of the APA does not permit review on the merits of any action taken by an administrative agency.”
Owens v. Zumwalt, 503 P.3d 1211 (Okla. 2022).
· cites it 3× “FOOTNOTES 75 O.S. § 306 See 75 O.S.2011 § 306 75 O.”
Conoco, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health, Etc., 651 P.2d 125 (Okla. 1982).
· cites it 2× “In affirming the trial court’s judgment of dismissal, we said: 32 “If appellants wish to challenge the validity of those rules, their proper procedure is to commence an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 75 O.S.1971, § 306, which was not done here.”
Bd. of Law Library Trs. v. State Ex Rel. Petuske, 825 P.2d 1285 (Okla. 1991).
· cites it 2× “This is so because the provisions of 75 O.S.Supp.1987 § 306, 20 which allow the district court to determine the legality of an agency’s rule in a declaratory judgment action, clearly do not apply to rules promulgated by a court.”
State Ex Rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31 (Okla. 2021).
“3d 219, 223 (administrative process may be inadequate to fully and satisfactorily protect a constitutional right, and Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S.2001 § 306, allowed a District Court declaratory judgment action to test the applicability and validity of an agency rule),…”
State v. Hovet, 2016 OK CR 26 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “75 O.S.2011, § 306(A). Judicial review of agency decisions—including review of declaratory judgments and issues of validity, and review or redress of constitutional issues separate from agency decisions—lies as a civil proceeding in district court, with appellate review in the…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 306(A): 5 cases
State v. Hovet, 2016 OK CR 26 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
“75 O.S.2011, § 306(A). Judicial review of agency decisions—including review of declaratory judgments and issues of validity, and review or redress of constitutional issues separate from agency decisions—lies as a civil proceeding in district court, with appellate review in the…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 306(C): 3 cases
State v. Hovet, 2016 OK CR 26 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
“75 O.S.2011, § 306(A). Judicial review of agency decisions—including review of declaratory judgments and issues of validity, and review or redress of constitutional issues separate from agency decisions—lies as a civil proceeding in district court, with appellate review in the…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 306(D): 1 case
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.