STATE EX REL. NESBITT v. RAMBO

STATE EX REL. NESBITT v. RAMBO
1969 OK 4
448 P.2d 1012
Case Number: 41795
Decided: 01/07/1969
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

 
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. CHARLES NESBITT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PLAINTIFF
IN ERROR,
v.
J. DAVID RAMBO, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

¶0. In order to be general in its nature and to have uniform operation, as contemplated by Art. 5, § 59, Okla. Const., a law need not be universal in its application and operate the same in every section of the State and upon all persons alike; the Legislature may classify for legislative purposes, but the classification adopted must be neither arbitrary nor capricious and must bear a rational relation to the object sought to be accomplished..

Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Clarence Mills, Assigned Judge.

Appeal from a judgment holding

Charles Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., W.J. Monroe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.

Vaughan & Smalley, Norman, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

¶1 J. David Rambo instituted this action in the lower court in which he sought a declaratory judgment determining the constitutionality of

¶2 The above statute imposed upon designated county officers, including the county judge, certain described additional duties for which they were to receive compensation in addition to their regular salary. The provisions of the statute made it applicable to all counties of the State having both a "state university and a state mental hospital" therein. It is not disputed that Cleveland County is the only county in the State that has both of these institutions and therefore is the only county that falls within the statutory classification.

¶3 The lower court found the classification was reasonable and was not capricious or arbitrary. It sustained this conclusion on the grounds that the State University and State Mental Institution were not on the tax rolls, that these institutions cause a great number of people to reside, work, do business and otherwise be within the county, which results in an increased work load upon the county officials and courts of Cleveland County that is far above that of other counties having a similar population.

¶4 In State of Oklahoma ex rel. Nesbitt, Atty. Gen. v. Rockwell, Okl.,

¶5 It is our opinion that the above cited decisions are controlling in the present case. It is our conclusion and we hold the Legislative enactment presently under consideration is unconstitutional.

¶6 Judgment reversed with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the views herein expressed.

¶7 All the Justices concur.