APRIL 2025 | 29 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse official action.”); See also, Baby F. v. Oklahoma Cty. Dist. Court, 2015 OK 24, ¶16, 348 P.3d 1080, 1085-86 (holding that “the substantive component of the due process clause bars certain governmental action despite the adequacy of procedural protections provided.”). 5. Messenger v. Messenger, 1992 OK 27, N. 42, 827 P.2d 865. 6. Jackson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 16 of Payne Cty., 1982 OK 74, ¶10, 648 P.2d 26, 30 (holding that due process is violated by the mere act of exercising judicial power upon process not reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of an action and are afforded the opportunity to present evidence and argument, representation by counsel, if desired, and information concerning the claims of the opposing party with reasonable opportunity to controvert them). 7. Lindsey v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Corr., 1979 OK 35, ¶17, 593 P.2d 1088, 1093 (reasoning that disciplinary action against an individual without due process “is not a matter of administrative discretion. It is a matter of constitutional rights.”). 8. Bowen v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Real Est. Appraisers, 2011 OK 86, 270 P.3d 133; Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of State of Okla., 1996 OK 41, 913 P.2d 1339. 9. State ex rel. Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors v. Guardian Funeral Home, 429 P.2d 732, 733, 736 (Okla. 1967) (“where it is necessary to procure a license in order to carry on a chosen profession or business, the power to revoke a license, once granted, and thus destroy in a measure the means of livelihood, is penal and therefore should be strictly construed.”). 10. Bowen v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Real Est. Appraisers, supra note 8. 11. Daffin v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Mines, 2011 OK 22, 251 P.3d 741, 748, citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-335 (1976). 12. Okla. Admin. Code §442:1-1-7(c) (2024). 13. Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of State of Okla., supra note 8 (holding that the administrative board improperly established the burden on the government lower than required for due process). 14. Thompson v. State ex rel. Bd. of Trustees of Oklahoma Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2011 OK 89, ¶7, 264 P.3d 1251, 1254-55. 15. Johnson, supra, at ¶19. 16. Id. 17. Id. at ¶20. 18. Id. at ¶26. 19. See, e.g., State ex rel. Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors v. Guardian Funeral Home, supra at n. 9. 20. See Okla. Admin. Code 442:10-2-5(j). 21. Okla. Admin. Code §165:5-11-1. 22. Okla. Admin. Code §442:1-1-10 states in its entirety: “Discovery shall not be commenced unless a scheduling order is entered in the case and the tribunal determines that discovery is necessary for the resolution of the issues. Discovery shall be completed in accordance with the scheduling order entered in the case. The tribunal may set the total permitted number of written discovery including interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission based on the needs of the case. The tribunal may limit the frequency, scope, and manner of depositions based on the needs of the case.” 23. Okla. Stat. tit. 75 §315(b). 24. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Maddox, 2006 OK 95, 152 P.3d 204, 210. 25. Jackson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 16 of Payne Cty., supra at n. 6. 26. Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496 (1959) (holding that no person may be deprived of the right to follow their chosen profession without full hearings where accusers may be confronted and cross-examined). 27. Id. 28. Id. 29. See Okla. Admin. Code 442:10-4-5(d), (e). 30. Compare Okla. Admin. Code 442:1-1-12 with Okla. Stat. tit. 63 §427.24. 31. Okla. Stat. tit. 63 §427.24(B). 32. See Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 of Oklahoma Cty. v. State ex rel. State Bd. of Educ., 2024 OK 39, ¶39 (holding that the State Board of Education was without statutory authority to exercise discretionary power over the local school board under promulgated administrative regulation). Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==