Stan Ward urges high court to leave lawsuit alone
Oct. 1—Local attorney Stan Ward has asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to deny the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority's application to assume jurisdiction over his open meeting lawsuit against the agency.
Ward filed a lawsuit to represent some 200 residents in May who claim the OTA did not properly inform the public in its January and February meeting agendas related to turnpike projects planned in Cleveland County.
It plans to build a turnpike in east Norman's Lake Thunderbird Watershed and one along Indian Hills Road.
OTA attorneys have argued without success in Cleveland County District Court that the Oklahoma Supreme Court is the sole venue for the case.
They argued that based on state law, challenges to the construction of turnpike projects and the issuance of bonds are the discretion of the high court to decide.
Attorneys for the agency pointed out that the Supreme Court is already set to decide whether the agency can issue bonds at an upcoming bond validation hearing.
Judge Timothy Olsen disagreed with OTA and ruled against its motion for a stay of all proceedings until the high court decides the bond validation matter.
Meanwhile, the agency submitted an application to the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction of the case, but Friday morning, Ward's legal team filed an objection to that application.
Allowing the case to be taken up by the high court would be unconstitutional due to amendments the legislature adopted decades ago, Ward's objection noted.
Prior to 1969, district courts had the power to hear cases that originated in each court's jurisdiction, unless stated elsewhere in the state constitution, Ward noted.
The legislature later adopted amendments to remove the vague language, he argued.
"There is simply nothing in [Title] 69 O.S. section 1718 that would say an Open Meeting Act lawsuit shall be dismissed if a Supreme Court proceeding to validate the bonds is initiated," the objection reads.
Mentioned in his objection to the court is an open meeting act complaint which the Supreme Court did take up because the objection was related to the issuance of bonds, he argued.
However, Ward's objection noted that his lawsuit will not "challenge bond issuance," nor the use of eminent domain powers.
If the Supreme Court were to assume jurisdiction to stay the lawsuit proceedings, the action would be "extraordinary."
"The Supreme Court does not serve as a pretrial reviewing panel for trial court orders adjudicating discovery matters," Ward's objection reads.
He said instances that warrant the court's supervision of a trial, or district court's discovery orders are rare cases. The instance for such oversight by the court has been in circumstances in which a district court commits an "abuse of discretion," by basing its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law or with the lack of any evidentiary basis for a ruling.
"Judge Timothy Olsen did not abuse his discretion when he ordered that the action in the trial court not be stayed, nor did he abuse his discretion when he ordered discovery," Ward wrote.
The OTA did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Mindy Wood covers City Hall news and notable court cases for The Transcript. Reach her at mwood@normantranscript.com or 405-416-4420.
