2011-12 Digest of opinions |
Previous | 1 of 7 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt Vol. 47, No. 3 Quarterly December, 2011 Digest of Opinions Opinion 2011-17 Anne M. Woody Oct. 7, 2011 Executive Director Oklahoma Real Estate Commission 1. The substantive regulation of real estate brokers is a matter of statewide interest. Pursuant to the Oklahoma Real Estate Code, 59 O.S.Supp.2010, § 858-201(A), the Legislature has established the Oklahoma Real Estate Commission as the sole governmental body with the power to substantively regulate real estate brokers. 2. Under the Oklahoma Municipal Code the Legislature has granted municipalities the power to enact ordinances, rules and regulations not inconsistent with the Constitu-tion and State laws for any purpose mentioned in Title 11 of the Okla-homa Statutes or for carrying out their municipal functions. See 11 O.S.2001, § 14-101. Pursuant to 11 O.S.Supp.2010, § 22-106, the Legislature has carved out for municipalities, both charter and non-charter, the authority to levy and to collect a tax from real estate brokers and to issue municipal licenses as evidence of payment of the tax. 3. Within the Oklahoma Municipal Code, the Legislature has granted municipalities the authority to en-act ordinances deemed necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the community. See 11 O.S.2001, §§ 22-120, 43-101. Some municipalities have enacted ordi-nances establishing rental property registration programs to address the problem of blighted and dete-riorated rental properties owned by absentee or out-of-county owners. Depending upon the given munici-pality’s definition of the term “op-eration” with respect to the rental property, the designated individual referenced within these ordinances may fall within the definition of a “real estate broker” under Okla-homa law and may be required to be licensed by the Oklahoma Real Estate Commission. 4. If a municipality’s definition of “operation” means the rental or leasing of the rental property or the solicitation of prospective tenants for the rental property, and a real estate broker acting as the desig-nated individual is performing these activities for a fee, commission or other valuable consideration, a mu-nicipality, charter or non-charter, cannot require the real estate broker to attend meetings associated with the rental property registration pro-gram or to live in or have an office in the county where the municipality is located or in an adjoining county. The real estate broker acting as the designated individual is performing activities that only a licensed real estate broker can perform under FYI You may get copies of Attorney General Opinions at: www.oag.ok.gov. Vol. 47, No. 3 Digest of Attorney General Opinions Page 2 Oklahoma law. 59 O.S.Supp.2010, § 858- 102(2). 5. If the real estate broker acting as the designated individual is leasing the rental property or soliciting prospec-tive tenants for the rental property for no fee, commission or other valuable consideration, the Real Estate Code is not implicated. See 59 O.S.Supp.2010, § 858-102(2). A municipality, charter or non-charter, may require the real estate broker acting as the designated indi-vidual for no fee to attend meetings or to live in or have an office in a particular geographic location. 6. If the given municipality’s definition of the word “operation” means the physical upkeep of the rental property or simply the collection of rental payments for the rental property, the Real Estate Code is not implicated, even when the real estate broker acting as the designated individual is performing these activities for a fee. 59 O.S.Supp.2010, § 858-102(2). A charter or non-charter municipality may require the real estate broker acting as the designated individual to attend meetings and to live in or have an office in a particular geographic location. 7. If the given municipality’s definition of the word “operation” means the physical upkeep of the rental property or the col-lection of rental payments, even though a real estate broker acting as the desig-nated individual is performing activities for which a real estate broker’s license is required under Oklahoma law along with activities for which no such license is required, a charter or non-charter municipality may require the real es-tate broker to attend meetings and to live in or have an office in a particular geographic location. E. SCOTT PRUITT Oklahoma Attor ney Gener al AL ECIA A. GEORGE Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-18 The Honorable Jabar Shumate Oct. 19, 2011 State Representative, District 73 1. When a school district borrows funds by the issuance of bonds for a specific purpose and the school district later sells the property, it must either use the sale proceeds representing the funds borrowed and applicable interest paid for the same specific purpose stated in the bond measure, if possible, or it must pay back the proceeds into the sinking fund. Okla. Const. art. X, § 16; 26; 70 O.S.2001, § 15-101; Protest of Reid, 15 P.2d 995, 998 (Okla. 1932); State ex rel. Grimes v. Bd. of Educ., 99 P.2d 876, 878 (Okla. 1940). 2. There is no time limitation past which a governmental bond issuer need no longer account for the proceeds from the sale or disposal of property financed in whole or in part by the issuance of bonds. The limitation on sale proceeds concerns “the use of the borrowed funds [being] applicable to subsequent uses as well as to the first use thereof.” Reid, 15 P.2d at 998; Okla. Const. art. X, § 16. E. SCOTT PRUITT Oklahoma Attor ney Gener al DAVID L. KIN EY Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-19 The Honorable Jeff Hickman Oct. 28, 2011 Speaker Pro Tempore 1. The phrase “routine sick calls within the county jail” means sick calls that takes place inside the county jail occurring in accordance with established proce-dure set by a sheriff or county jail. 57 O.S.Supp.2010, § 38.3(C). The sheriff of each county is required to pay for sick calls of inmates retained in county jails after judgment and sentencing when those sick calls take place inside the county jail and take place in accordance Vol. 47, No. 3 Digest of Attorney General Opinions Page 3 with the established procedure set by a sheriff or county jail. Id. The Depart-ment of Corrections must reimburse health care providers for the cost of all sick calls of retained state inmates other than sick calls that fall within the meaning of “routine sick calls within the county jail” as that meaning is deter-mined by each sheriff or county jail. Id. Whether or not a “sick call” is of the type that is in accordance with established procedure set within a county jail and is, therefore, routine, constitutes a question of fact specific to each county jail and is beyond the scope of an Attorney General Opinion. 74 O.S.Supp.2010, § 18b(A)(5). 2. To the extent a county expends funds the county would not otherwise expend in providing routine sick calls for county inmates, 57 O.S.Supp.2010, § 38.3(C) is unconstitutional as it requires counties to financially support a state penal insti-tution by requiring counties to pay for medical care and treatment for inmates retained after judgment and sentencing. Id.; Okla. Const. art. XXI, § 1; State ex rel. Dep’t of Human Serv. v. Malibie, 630 P.2d 310 at 315, 317 (Okla. 1981); A.G. Opin. 2011-8. 3. To the extent a county expends funds the county would not otherwise expend for routine sick calls for county inmates, Article X, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution is violated when a county uses ad valorem tax revenues, directly or indirectly, to pay for routine sick calls of retained state inmates as required by subsection C of Section 38.3. A.G. Opin. 2011-8; Okla. Const. art. X, § 9(a); 57 O.S.Supp.2010, § 38.3(C); Malibie, 630 P.2d at 315-17. 4. Whether a county expends funds the county would not otherwise expend when providing routine sick calls for county inmates in those circumstances in which the county provides routine sick calls within the county jail to retained state inmates constitutes a question of fact specific to each jail and is beyond the scope of an Attorney General Opinion. 74 O.S.Supp.2010, § 18b(A)(5). E. SCOTT PRUITT Oklahoma Attor ney Gener al KA RL F. KRAM ER Assistant Attorney General Opinion 2011-20 The Honorable Jason Murphey Oct. 28, 2011 State Representative, District 31 1. A city council can not enter into a contract with an owner of commercial property to provide the property with an exclusive exemption from city building codes and other city ordinances arising out of the city’s use of its police powers (e.g. building codes, zoning, health and safety), because such a contract is con-trary to the fundamental law of police powers and is void ab initio. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 192 P. 349, 349-50 (Okla. 1920). 2. Title 11 O.S.Supp.2010, § 21-103(A) empowers a city to annex territory adja-cent or contiguous to it without consent of the owners of at least a majority of the acres to be annexed on conditions stated therein. A city is limited by Okla. Const. art. X, § 17 which prohibits a city from receiving less than adequate consideration from a property owner for a consensual annexation when the city could proceed to force annexation using its own statutory power for less costs. 3. As long as a city council votes to deter-mine a specific arrangement or plan will serve a legitimate public purpose of promoting the general welfare, economic security, and prosperity of the city, and such determination is not manifestly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, a city may contract with the owner of commercial property to pay the owner compensation equal to a pro-rata share of additional sales tax revenue collected as a result a consensual annexation of the owner’s property. See State ex Rel. Vol. 47, No. 3 Digest of Attorney General Opinions Page 4 Brown v. City of Warr Acres, 946 P.2d 1140, 1144 - 45 (Okla. 1997). E. SCOTT PRUITT Attor ney Gener al of Oklahoma JOHN CRITTENDEN Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-21 The Honorable Al McAffrey Nov. 8, 2011 State Representative, District 88 1. When the body of a person whose death occurred in Oklahoma is to be transport-ed or shipped out of the State, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner must conduct an investigation of the death. 63 O.S.2001, § 938(A)(8). No investigation is required when the remains of a person whose death did not occur in Oklahoma are to be transported or shipped out of the State. 2. The Chief Medical Examiner determines the nature, character, and extent of the investigation of deaths of persons whose bodies will be transported out of the State. 63 O.S.2001, § 939. The inves-tigation may be limited to a review of the medical records and history of the deceased, or may also include the col-lection and testing of specimens and an autopsy. Id. §§ 941, 944. 3. The fee for the forensic service of “trans-port out of state investigations” autho-rized by 63 O.S.2001, § 948.1(A)(2)(b) and OAC 445:10-1-11(2)(D)(iii) applies to the fee for out-of-state shipment of remains referenced in 63 O.S.2001, § 947(D). The Office of the Chief Medi-cal Examine may charge the “transport out of state investigations” fee listed in OAC 445:10-1-11(2)(D(iii) for the in-vestigation of the death of a body to be transported out of the State required by Section 938(A)(8). 4. The investigation fee is distinct from the “permit for transport of a body out of state” referenced in Section 947(C). Sec-tion 947(C) refers to the burial-transit permit issued by the Oklahoma State Department of Health when a body is to be transported out of the State via rail-road or common carrier. 63 O.S.2001, § 101. 5. The Office of the Chief Medical Exam-iner’s duty in Section 1-329.1 of Title 63, to issue a permit for the disposal or cremation of a body and charge a fee for the permit does not include the authority to issue a permit and charge a permit fee for the out-of-state transport of a body. Id.; see also id. § 948.1(A)(2)(a). E. SCOTT PRUITT Attor ney Gener al of Oklahoma SAN DRA J. BAL ZER Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-22 The Honorable Sean Burrage Nov. 28, 2011 State Senator, District 2 The Honorable Marty Quinn State Representative, District 9 1. The word “nonprofit” as used in 25 O.S.Supp.2010, § 307(C)(10), which grants public bodies authority to hold executive sessions for purposes of con-ferring on certain matters pertaining to economic development, only applies to foundations and not every public body listed. 2. City councils and public trusts created pursuant to 60 O.S.2001 & Supp.2010, §§ 178 – 180.4, including those with a municipality as a beneficiary, may hold executive sessions for purposes of con-ferring on certain matters pertaining to economic development pursuant to 25 O.S.Supp.2010, § 307(C)(10). 3. If a public body determines an execu-tive session is necessary to protect the development of products or services or to protect the confidentiality of a busi-ness, and if the public body has given proper notice of the proposed execu-tive session under 25 O.S.Supp.2010, § 311(B)(2), then the public body may vote and enter into executive session for Vol. 47, No. 3 Digest of Attorney General Opinions Page 5 purposes of conferring on certain mat-ters of economic development pursuant 25 O.S.Supp.2010, § 307(C)(10). E. SCOTT PRUITT Attor ney Gener al of Oklahoma GEOFFREY D. LONG Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-23 The Honorable Ron Justice Dec. 12, 2011 State Senator, District 23 1. The road mileage of municipal streets or roads that the county has agreed to construct, improve, repair or maintain pursuant to 11 O.S.Supp.2010, § 36- 113(E) shall not be included as part of the county road mileage for purposes of state tax revenues apportioned to the county. Section 36-113(E) is controlling over 69 O.S.Supp.2010, § 316, which contains conflicting language, as Section 36-113(E) was enacted later in time and is more specific. 2. Counties may enter into agreements pursuant to 11 O.S.Supp.2010, § 36-113 to construct, improve, repair or main-tain municipal streets or roads without violating either, Okla. Const. art. X, § 20 prohibiting the imposition of state taxes for county or local purposes, or Okla. Const. art. X, § 9 prohibiting the use of county ad valorem taxes for state purposes. 3. The Oklahoma Motor Fuel Tax Code, 68 O.S.2001 & Supp.2010, § 500.1 – 500.64, governs the distribution of taxes levied upon certain motor fuels among the vari-ous counties of the State for purposes including constructing and maintaining county roads. This statute does not gov-ern how county commissioners divide county road funds among the districts in the individual counties. 4. A board of county commissioners is re-quired to act on behalf of the county as a whole rather than each commissioner acting on behalf of his or her district. Bd. of Comm’rs v. Landrum, 21 P.2d 736, 737- 38 (Okla. 1933). See also 69 O.S.2001, § 201 (holding that it is the duty of the board of county commissioners in each county to construct and maintain those roads which best serve the most people of the county). E. SCOTT PRUITT Attor ney Gener al of Oklahoma SAN DRA D. RINEHA RT Senior Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-24 The Honorable Sean Roberts Dec. 15, 2011 State Representative, District 36 The advertisement, offering for sale and sale of merchandise below cost, as defined by the Unfair Sales Act, at a short-term promotional event violate the Unfair Sales Act unless: (i) the merchandise is priced below cost in a good faith effort to meet the prices of the retailer’s competition so as to satisfy the requirements of the “safe harbor” provided in 15 O.S.2001, § 598.7, or (ii) the event meets the literal requirements of one of the following statutory exceptions as set forth in 15 O.S.2001, § 598.6: (1) bona fide clearance sales of seasonal merchandise, if advertised and sold as such; (2) sales of perishable goods that must be sold promptly to avoid losses; (3) sales of imperfect, damaged or discon-tinued goods, if advertised and sold as such; (4) final liquidation sales; (5) goods sold for charitable purposes or to relief agencies; (6) goods sold per contracts with govern-ment departments or institutions; (7) court-ordered sales; (8) bona fide auction sales. E. SCOTT PRUITT Attor ney Gener al of Oklahoma ETHAN SHAN ER Asist ant Attor ney Gener al
Object Description
Okla State Agency |
Attorney General, Oklahoma |
Okla Agency Code | '049' |
Title | Digest of opinions |
Authors | Oklahoma. Attorney General's Office. |
Publisher | Oklahoma Attorney General |
Publication Date | 2010; 2011 |
Publication type |
Newsletter Laws/Rules |
Serial holdings | Electronic holdings: 2010-2011 |
Subject | Attorneys general's opinions--Oklahoma--Periodicals. |
Notes | issues through 2011; related title: Opinions of the Attorney General (OkDocs A3600.6 O61) |
OkDocs Class# | A3600.6 D572 |
For all issues click | A3600.6 D572 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Received from agency via e-mail |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Date created | 2011-08-29 |
Date modified | 2012-11-09 |
OCLC number | 819810501 |
Description
Title | 2011-12 Digest of opinions |
OkDocs Class# | A3200.6 D572 12/2011 v.47 no.3 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Received from agency via e-mail |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyrightholders. |
Language | English |
Full text | Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt Vol. 47, No. 3 Quarterly December, 2011 Digest of Opinions Opinion 2011-17 Anne M. Woody Oct. 7, 2011 Executive Director Oklahoma Real Estate Commission 1. The substantive regulation of real estate brokers is a matter of statewide interest. Pursuant to the Oklahoma Real Estate Code, 59 O.S.Supp.2010, § 858-201(A), the Legislature has established the Oklahoma Real Estate Commission as the sole governmental body with the power to substantively regulate real estate brokers. 2. Under the Oklahoma Municipal Code the Legislature has granted municipalities the power to enact ordinances, rules and regulations not inconsistent with the Constitu-tion and State laws for any purpose mentioned in Title 11 of the Okla-homa Statutes or for carrying out their municipal functions. See 11 O.S.2001, § 14-101. Pursuant to 11 O.S.Supp.2010, § 22-106, the Legislature has carved out for municipalities, both charter and non-charter, the authority to levy and to collect a tax from real estate brokers and to issue municipal licenses as evidence of payment of the tax. 3. Within the Oklahoma Municipal Code, the Legislature has granted municipalities the authority to en-act ordinances deemed necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the community. See 11 O.S.2001, §§ 22-120, 43-101. Some municipalities have enacted ordi-nances establishing rental property registration programs to address the problem of blighted and dete-riorated rental properties owned by absentee or out-of-county owners. Depending upon the given munici-pality’s definition of the term “op-eration” with respect to the rental property, the designated individual referenced within these ordinances may fall within the definition of a “real estate broker” under Okla-homa law and may be required to be licensed by the Oklahoma Real Estate Commission. 4. If a municipality’s definition of “operation” means the rental or leasing of the rental property or the solicitation of prospective tenants for the rental property, and a real estate broker acting as the desig-nated individual is performing these activities for a fee, commission or other valuable consideration, a mu-nicipality, charter or non-charter, cannot require the real estate broker to attend meetings associated with the rental property registration pro-gram or to live in or have an office in the county where the municipality is located or in an adjoining county. The real estate broker acting as the designated individual is performing activities that only a licensed real estate broker can perform under FYI You may get copies of Attorney General Opinions at: www.oag.ok.gov. Vol. 47, No. 3 Digest of Attorney General Opinions Page 2 Oklahoma law. 59 O.S.Supp.2010, § 858- 102(2). 5. If the real estate broker acting as the designated individual is leasing the rental property or soliciting prospec-tive tenants for the rental property for no fee, commission or other valuable consideration, the Real Estate Code is not implicated. See 59 O.S.Supp.2010, § 858-102(2). A municipality, charter or non-charter, may require the real estate broker acting as the designated indi-vidual for no fee to attend meetings or to live in or have an office in a particular geographic location. 6. If the given municipality’s definition of the word “operation” means the physical upkeep of the rental property or simply the collection of rental payments for the rental property, the Real Estate Code is not implicated, even when the real estate broker acting as the designated individual is performing these activities for a fee. 59 O.S.Supp.2010, § 858-102(2). A charter or non-charter municipality may require the real estate broker acting as the designated individual to attend meetings and to live in or have an office in a particular geographic location. 7. If the given municipality’s definition of the word “operation” means the physical upkeep of the rental property or the col-lection of rental payments, even though a real estate broker acting as the desig-nated individual is performing activities for which a real estate broker’s license is required under Oklahoma law along with activities for which no such license is required, a charter or non-charter municipality may require the real es-tate broker to attend meetings and to live in or have an office in a particular geographic location. E. SCOTT PRUITT Oklahoma Attor ney Gener al AL ECIA A. GEORGE Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-18 The Honorable Jabar Shumate Oct. 19, 2011 State Representative, District 73 1. When a school district borrows funds by the issuance of bonds for a specific purpose and the school district later sells the property, it must either use the sale proceeds representing the funds borrowed and applicable interest paid for the same specific purpose stated in the bond measure, if possible, or it must pay back the proceeds into the sinking fund. Okla. Const. art. X, § 16; 26; 70 O.S.2001, § 15-101; Protest of Reid, 15 P.2d 995, 998 (Okla. 1932); State ex rel. Grimes v. Bd. of Educ., 99 P.2d 876, 878 (Okla. 1940). 2. There is no time limitation past which a governmental bond issuer need no longer account for the proceeds from the sale or disposal of property financed in whole or in part by the issuance of bonds. The limitation on sale proceeds concerns “the use of the borrowed funds [being] applicable to subsequent uses as well as to the first use thereof.” Reid, 15 P.2d at 998; Okla. Const. art. X, § 16. E. SCOTT PRUITT Oklahoma Attor ney Gener al DAVID L. KIN EY Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-19 The Honorable Jeff Hickman Oct. 28, 2011 Speaker Pro Tempore 1. The phrase “routine sick calls within the county jail” means sick calls that takes place inside the county jail occurring in accordance with established proce-dure set by a sheriff or county jail. 57 O.S.Supp.2010, § 38.3(C). The sheriff of each county is required to pay for sick calls of inmates retained in county jails after judgment and sentencing when those sick calls take place inside the county jail and take place in accordance Vol. 47, No. 3 Digest of Attorney General Opinions Page 3 with the established procedure set by a sheriff or county jail. Id. The Depart-ment of Corrections must reimburse health care providers for the cost of all sick calls of retained state inmates other than sick calls that fall within the meaning of “routine sick calls within the county jail” as that meaning is deter-mined by each sheriff or county jail. Id. Whether or not a “sick call” is of the type that is in accordance with established procedure set within a county jail and is, therefore, routine, constitutes a question of fact specific to each county jail and is beyond the scope of an Attorney General Opinion. 74 O.S.Supp.2010, § 18b(A)(5). 2. To the extent a county expends funds the county would not otherwise expend in providing routine sick calls for county inmates, 57 O.S.Supp.2010, § 38.3(C) is unconstitutional as it requires counties to financially support a state penal insti-tution by requiring counties to pay for medical care and treatment for inmates retained after judgment and sentencing. Id.; Okla. Const. art. XXI, § 1; State ex rel. Dep’t of Human Serv. v. Malibie, 630 P.2d 310 at 315, 317 (Okla. 1981); A.G. Opin. 2011-8. 3. To the extent a county expends funds the county would not otherwise expend for routine sick calls for county inmates, Article X, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution is violated when a county uses ad valorem tax revenues, directly or indirectly, to pay for routine sick calls of retained state inmates as required by subsection C of Section 38.3. A.G. Opin. 2011-8; Okla. Const. art. X, § 9(a); 57 O.S.Supp.2010, § 38.3(C); Malibie, 630 P.2d at 315-17. 4. Whether a county expends funds the county would not otherwise expend when providing routine sick calls for county inmates in those circumstances in which the county provides routine sick calls within the county jail to retained state inmates constitutes a question of fact specific to each jail and is beyond the scope of an Attorney General Opinion. 74 O.S.Supp.2010, § 18b(A)(5). E. SCOTT PRUITT Oklahoma Attor ney Gener al KA RL F. KRAM ER Assistant Attorney General Opinion 2011-20 The Honorable Jason Murphey Oct. 28, 2011 State Representative, District 31 1. A city council can not enter into a contract with an owner of commercial property to provide the property with an exclusive exemption from city building codes and other city ordinances arising out of the city’s use of its police powers (e.g. building codes, zoning, health and safety), because such a contract is con-trary to the fundamental law of police powers and is void ab initio. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 192 P. 349, 349-50 (Okla. 1920). 2. Title 11 O.S.Supp.2010, § 21-103(A) empowers a city to annex territory adja-cent or contiguous to it without consent of the owners of at least a majority of the acres to be annexed on conditions stated therein. A city is limited by Okla. Const. art. X, § 17 which prohibits a city from receiving less than adequate consideration from a property owner for a consensual annexation when the city could proceed to force annexation using its own statutory power for less costs. 3. As long as a city council votes to deter-mine a specific arrangement or plan will serve a legitimate public purpose of promoting the general welfare, economic security, and prosperity of the city, and such determination is not manifestly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, a city may contract with the owner of commercial property to pay the owner compensation equal to a pro-rata share of additional sales tax revenue collected as a result a consensual annexation of the owner’s property. See State ex Rel. Vol. 47, No. 3 Digest of Attorney General Opinions Page 4 Brown v. City of Warr Acres, 946 P.2d 1140, 1144 - 45 (Okla. 1997). E. SCOTT PRUITT Attor ney Gener al of Oklahoma JOHN CRITTENDEN Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-21 The Honorable Al McAffrey Nov. 8, 2011 State Representative, District 88 1. When the body of a person whose death occurred in Oklahoma is to be transport-ed or shipped out of the State, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner must conduct an investigation of the death. 63 O.S.2001, § 938(A)(8). No investigation is required when the remains of a person whose death did not occur in Oklahoma are to be transported or shipped out of the State. 2. The Chief Medical Examiner determines the nature, character, and extent of the investigation of deaths of persons whose bodies will be transported out of the State. 63 O.S.2001, § 939. The inves-tigation may be limited to a review of the medical records and history of the deceased, or may also include the col-lection and testing of specimens and an autopsy. Id. §§ 941, 944. 3. The fee for the forensic service of “trans-port out of state investigations” autho-rized by 63 O.S.2001, § 948.1(A)(2)(b) and OAC 445:10-1-11(2)(D)(iii) applies to the fee for out-of-state shipment of remains referenced in 63 O.S.2001, § 947(D). The Office of the Chief Medi-cal Examine may charge the “transport out of state investigations” fee listed in OAC 445:10-1-11(2)(D(iii) for the in-vestigation of the death of a body to be transported out of the State required by Section 938(A)(8). 4. The investigation fee is distinct from the “permit for transport of a body out of state” referenced in Section 947(C). Sec-tion 947(C) refers to the burial-transit permit issued by the Oklahoma State Department of Health when a body is to be transported out of the State via rail-road or common carrier. 63 O.S.2001, § 101. 5. The Office of the Chief Medical Exam-iner’s duty in Section 1-329.1 of Title 63, to issue a permit for the disposal or cremation of a body and charge a fee for the permit does not include the authority to issue a permit and charge a permit fee for the out-of-state transport of a body. Id.; see also id. § 948.1(A)(2)(a). E. SCOTT PRUITT Attor ney Gener al of Oklahoma SAN DRA J. BAL ZER Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-22 The Honorable Sean Burrage Nov. 28, 2011 State Senator, District 2 The Honorable Marty Quinn State Representative, District 9 1. The word “nonprofit” as used in 25 O.S.Supp.2010, § 307(C)(10), which grants public bodies authority to hold executive sessions for purposes of con-ferring on certain matters pertaining to economic development, only applies to foundations and not every public body listed. 2. City councils and public trusts created pursuant to 60 O.S.2001 & Supp.2010, §§ 178 – 180.4, including those with a municipality as a beneficiary, may hold executive sessions for purposes of con-ferring on certain matters pertaining to economic development pursuant to 25 O.S.Supp.2010, § 307(C)(10). 3. If a public body determines an execu-tive session is necessary to protect the development of products or services or to protect the confidentiality of a busi-ness, and if the public body has given proper notice of the proposed execu-tive session under 25 O.S.Supp.2010, § 311(B)(2), then the public body may vote and enter into executive session for Vol. 47, No. 3 Digest of Attorney General Opinions Page 5 purposes of conferring on certain mat-ters of economic development pursuant 25 O.S.Supp.2010, § 307(C)(10). E. SCOTT PRUITT Attor ney Gener al of Oklahoma GEOFFREY D. LONG Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-23 The Honorable Ron Justice Dec. 12, 2011 State Senator, District 23 1. The road mileage of municipal streets or roads that the county has agreed to construct, improve, repair or maintain pursuant to 11 O.S.Supp.2010, § 36- 113(E) shall not be included as part of the county road mileage for purposes of state tax revenues apportioned to the county. Section 36-113(E) is controlling over 69 O.S.Supp.2010, § 316, which contains conflicting language, as Section 36-113(E) was enacted later in time and is more specific. 2. Counties may enter into agreements pursuant to 11 O.S.Supp.2010, § 36-113 to construct, improve, repair or main-tain municipal streets or roads without violating either, Okla. Const. art. X, § 20 prohibiting the imposition of state taxes for county or local purposes, or Okla. Const. art. X, § 9 prohibiting the use of county ad valorem taxes for state purposes. 3. The Oklahoma Motor Fuel Tax Code, 68 O.S.2001 & Supp.2010, § 500.1 – 500.64, governs the distribution of taxes levied upon certain motor fuels among the vari-ous counties of the State for purposes including constructing and maintaining county roads. This statute does not gov-ern how county commissioners divide county road funds among the districts in the individual counties. 4. A board of county commissioners is re-quired to act on behalf of the county as a whole rather than each commissioner acting on behalf of his or her district. Bd. of Comm’rs v. Landrum, 21 P.2d 736, 737- 38 (Okla. 1933). See also 69 O.S.2001, § 201 (holding that it is the duty of the board of county commissioners in each county to construct and maintain those roads which best serve the most people of the county). E. SCOTT PRUITT Attor ney Gener al of Oklahoma SAN DRA D. RINEHA RT Senior Asist ant Attor ney Gener al Opinion 2011-24 The Honorable Sean Roberts Dec. 15, 2011 State Representative, District 36 The advertisement, offering for sale and sale of merchandise below cost, as defined by the Unfair Sales Act, at a short-term promotional event violate the Unfair Sales Act unless: (i) the merchandise is priced below cost in a good faith effort to meet the prices of the retailer’s competition so as to satisfy the requirements of the “safe harbor” provided in 15 O.S.2001, § 598.7, or (ii) the event meets the literal requirements of one of the following statutory exceptions as set forth in 15 O.S.2001, § 598.6: (1) bona fide clearance sales of seasonal merchandise, if advertised and sold as such; (2) sales of perishable goods that must be sold promptly to avoid losses; (3) sales of imperfect, damaged or discon-tinued goods, if advertised and sold as such; (4) final liquidation sales; (5) goods sold for charitable purposes or to relief agencies; (6) goods sold per contracts with govern-ment departments or institutions; (7) court-ordered sales; (8) bona fide auction sales. E. SCOTT PRUITT Attor ney Gener al of Oklahoma ETHAN SHAN ER Asist ant Attor ney Gener al |
Date created | 2012-01-27 |
Date modified | 2012-01-27 |