Almen v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm.

Almen v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm.
1995 OK 92
903 P.2d 875
66 OBJ 2879
Case Number: 83323
Decided: 09/19/1995
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Harold W. ALMEN dba The BUCKET SHOP, Appellant,
v.
OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION, FUEL DIVISION, Appellee.

Irwin H. Steinhorn, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Marchi McCartney, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

SIMMS, Justice.

¶1 Does the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, or the Oklahoma County District Court, have appellate jurisdiction over a final order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission which determines that an applicant is not entitled to reimbursement from the Oklahoma Petroleum Storage Tank Release Environmental Cleanup Indemnity Fund (Indemnity Fund)? We hold that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over this matter.

¶2 Claimant (appellant) applied to the Indemnity Program Administrator, an employee of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, for reimbursement from the Indemnity Fund under

¶3 Claimant filed a timely petition in error in the Supreme Court from the order of the Commission. As a precautionary measure, claimant also filed a petition in the district court, seeking review of the same Commission order.

¶4 The Corporation Commission has now filed a motion in this Court, requesting that we determine whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court, or the district court, has appellate jurisdiction. The Commission states that proceedings have been stayed in the district court pending this Court's determination of this issue.

¶5 Commission argues that appellate jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court because appeals from other Corporation Commission orders are taken directly to the Supreme Court, citing Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 9, § 20 (appeals from order regarding public utilities and public service companies),

¶6 However, the Commission points out that the above cited statutes and constitutional provision expressly provide for appeals from Corporation Commission orders to the Supreme Court and that there is no such provision in the Oklahoma Petroleum Storage Tank Release Indemnity Program.

¶7 Title

¶8 This statutory scheme does not expressly provide for appeals from adverse rulings by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. This silence is in contrast to the express provisions for appeals from orders rendered in connection with regulatory authority conferred upon the Oklahoma Corporation Commission by the above cited other statutes and Oklahoma Constitution. Instead,

¶9 On the other hand, there is no express prohibition against an appeal. In Jackson v. Huddleston,

¶10 Thus, exercising the authority conferred upon this Court by Art. 7, § 4, of the Oklahoma Constitution, we determine that appeals from final orders of the Corporation Commission, adjudicating controversies arising under the Oklahoma Petroleum Storage Tank Release Indemnity Program,

¶11 Although appeals from many administrative agencies are taken to the district court pursuant to

¶12 The motion of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to determine appellate jurisdiction is granted and it is determined that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over the cause. Consequently, this appeal may go forward in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases.

¶13 All the Justices concur.