STATE BD., EMB. FUN. D. v. STONE CASKET

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 90,123

Attorney(S)

W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Joseph L. McCormick, IV, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Plaintiff/Appellant, Melvin R. McVay, Jr., Heather L. Hintz, Phillips, McFall, McCaffrey, McVay Murrah, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Defendant/Appellee.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Stone Casket Company of Oklahoma City was engaged in selling caskets directly to the public without holding a license required under Oklahoma law. The State of Oklahoma ex rel. State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors filed an action seeking an injunction and a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the company from selling caskets, alleging violation of 59 O.S. 1991 § 396.6. The trial court granted the TRO but later dissolved it after finding certain statutory licensing requirements unconstitutional as applied to the casket company. The court concluded that the statutes requiring licensing for selling caskets infringed on constitutional rights under the Oklahoma Constitution, specifically Art. 2, Sec. 2, because there was no compelling state interest justifying the licensing of a business solely selling caskets. The State Board’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and although a stay was granted on the order declaring the statute unconstitutional, the court’s order was deemed final and appealable.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the statutes requiring licensing for the sale of funeral service merchandise, including caskets, violate the Oklahoma Constitution’s protection of individual rights under Art. 2, Sec. 2.
Whether the statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing licensing requirements on a business solely engaged in selling caskets.
Whether the State has a legitimate interest in regulating the sale of caskets as part of the funeral services business under its police power.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors)

The statutes requiring licensing of those selling funeral service merchandise, including caskets, are a valid exercise of the State’s police power to protect public health and safety.
The sale of caskets is integrally connected to the funeral service business and cannot be treated as a separate, unregulated activity.
The Equal Protection Clause requires only that classifications have a rational basis, which the statutes satisfy by furthering legitimate state interests.
Licensing is a proper and necessary method to enforce sanitation and safety standards related to the burial of human remains.
Precedents support the State’s authority to regulate professions and businesses affecting public health, including funeral services.

Appellee's Arguments (The Stone Casket Company)

The company contended the challenged statutes are unconstitutional under both the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions.
The company argued the statutes improperly require licensing for a business solely engaged in selling caskets, a practice distinct from funeral directing or embalming.
The company asserted there was no compelling state interest to justify imposing the same licensing requirements applicable to funeral directors on a casket seller.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992)	Clarifies that Equal Protection Clause classifications require only a rational basis unless fundamental rights or suspect classes are involved.	The court applied this standard, finding no fundamental right or suspect class implicated, thus requiring only a rational basis review of the statutes.
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985)	Provides guidance on classifications under Equal Protection.	Referenced in establishing the standard of review for the statutes in question.
New Orleans v. Duke, 427 U.S. 297 (1976)	Affirms rational basis review for non-suspect classifications.	Used to support the rational basis standard applied by the court.
State of Oklahoma v. McDonald, 787 P.2d 466 (Okla. Civ. App. 1989)	Supports the State’s authority to regulate for public health and welfare.	The court cited this case to affirm the State’s legitimate interest in regulating funeral services including casket sales.
Ex parte Herrin, 93 P.2d 21 (Okla. Crim. 1939)	Upheld regulation of professions affecting public health and safety under State police power.	Used to justify the State’s licensing requirements as a valid exercise of police power.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying the constitutional framework governing the case, noting that the Equal Protection Clause requires only a rational basis review unless a fundamental right or suspect classification is implicated. The court found no fundamental right or suspect class involved in the licensing statutes applied to casket sales. It then evaluated whether the statutes rationally further a legitimate state interest. The court held that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating funeral services to protect public health and safety, as these services concern the preparation and disposal of human remains.

The court reasoned that caskets are an integral part of the funeral service business because they directly relate to burial and sanitation. Therefore, regulating the sale of caskets through licensing is a rational means to ensure public health and environmental protection. The court rejected the lower court’s view that casket sales could be separated from funeral directing or embalming for regulatory purposes. It emphasized that licensing is a proper and widely used method to enforce safety and sanitation standards.

The court also noted that while out-of-state sales of caskets might occur without licensing, the State has authority to prohibit importation of contraband or noncompliant merchandise, further supporting the licensing scheme. Given these considerations, the court reversed the trial court’s finding of unconstitutionality and directed that judgment be entered in favor of the State Board, including the injunction against the Casket Company.

Holding and Implications

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

The court held that the statutes requiring licensing for the sale of caskets are constitutional and serve a legitimate state interest in protecting public health and safety. The trial court’s ruling declaring the statutes unconstitutional was reversed. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the State Board and grant the requested injunction against the Stone Casket Company.

The decision directly affects the parties by reinstating the State’s authority to regulate casket sales through licensing. No new legal precedent beyond the application of established constitutional principles and prior case law was created.

Show full summary ...

STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. STATE BOARD OF EMBALMERS AND FUNERAL DIRECTORS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE STONE CASKET COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Defendant/Appellee.

RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA DIVISION I

OPINION

GARRETT, Judge:

¶ 1 Appellee, The Stone Casket Company of Oklahoma City, was selling caskets directly to the public. Appellant, The State of Oklahoma ex rel. State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, filed an action for injunction and an application for temporary restraining order against the Casket Company alleging it was unlicensed, and therefore was violating 59 O.S. 1991 § 396.6[ 59-396.6]. The court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), restraining Casket Company from selling caskets. Casket Company sought to dissolve the TRO and filed an answer to the petition seeking to establish the unconstitutionality of 59 O.S. 1991 §§ 396.2[ 59-396.2] (2)(d), 396.3 [ 59-396.3] (a)(1)(c), and 396.6 [ 59-396.6] (A). It was uncontroverted at trial that Casket Company was solely in the business of selling caskets to the public, and did not otherwise engage in the care and preparation of human remains for burial. Casket Co. contended the statutes violate both the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions. Upon hearing, the court found the above statutes to be unconstitutional pursuant to Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 2, insofar as the statutes required a person to be licensed to sell caskets and dissolved the temporary restraining order. The court found there was no compelling state interest which would require a person who is solely in the business of selling caskets to meet the same qualifications as funeral directors or embalmers or to be held to the same standards which the State requires of funeral directors. State Board's motion to reconsider was denied. The State Board also sought a stay of the court's order declaring § 396.6 [ 59-396.6] unconstitutional. The stay was granted. The court found its order to be final for purposes of appeal.

That statute provides in pertinent part:

A. No person shall operate a funeral establishment or limited service establishment, engage in the sale of any funeral service merchandise to the public, provide funeral services, carry on the business or profession of embalming or funeral directing or perform any of the functions, duties, or powers prescribed for funeral directors or embalmers pursuant to the provisions of the Funeral Services Licensing Act unless such person has obtained the license specified by rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Funeral Services Licensing Act and has otherwise complied with the provisions of the Funeral Services Licensing Act. Said license shall be nontransferable and nonnegotiable. (Footnote omitted).

59 O.S. 1991 § 396.2[ 59-396.2] (2)(d) provides:
2. "Funeral director" means a person who:
***
d. sells funeral service merchandise to the public;
59 O.S. 1991 § 396.3[ 59-396.3] (a)(1)(c) provides:

The following persons, professions and businesses shall be required to be licensed pursuant to the Funeral Services Licensing Act:

1. Any person engaged or who may engage in:
***
c. the sale of any funeral service merchandise, or

Art. 2, Sec. 2 provides:

All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.

¶ 2 State Board contends the court erred in finding the above statutes unconstitutional and, the court abused its discretion in denying State's request for an injunction to enforce them against Casket Company. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that no state "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause requires only that the classification "rationally further a legitimate state interest" unless a classification "jeopardizes exercise of a fundamental right" or it "characterizes based upon an inherently suspect characteristic." Nordlinger v. Hahn , 505 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 2326, 120 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992) (citing Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. , 473 U.S. 432, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985); New Orleans v. Duke , 427 U.S. 297, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976).

¶ 3 We hold there is no overriding fundamental right jeopardized and no suspect class is involved. We must determine whether the statutes, insofar as they affect a citizen's right to sell caskets, rationally furthers a legitimate state interest. We hold the statutes do, and therefore the lower court's finding of unconstitutionality is reversed. The State has a legitimate interest in regulating funeral services because those services relate to the preparation and disposal of human remains. Such laws protect the public health and safety of the citizens of Oklahoma. Caskets are directly involved in the burial of human remains. A casket is a part of the funeral service business and cannot be separated as an independent item. The casket, in which human remains are buried directly impacts sanitation. The State may enact laws which protect the public's health and welfare and which protect the environment. State of Oklahoma v. McDonald , 1989 OK CIV APP ___, 787 P.2d 466. In Ex parte Herrin , 1939 OK CR ___, 93 P.2d 21, the Court upheld legislation that directly affected the health and safety of the public and held that professions which affect the same may be regulated under the police power of the State. Here, the State showed a rational relationship and a legitimate state interest which would require such licensing. The court's judgment that the statutes requiring licensing are unconstitutional must be reversed. Licensing is one of the proper and much used methods of enforcing safety and sanitation rules.

Theoretically, the Oklahoma public could obtain the same casket sold by Casket Company from telephone sales by out of state casket sellers or, sales via the Internet without either of these sellers being licensed by the State of Oklahoma. It is apparent to this Court that the State of Oklahoma may prohibit the importation into this state of contraband property. This certainly includes caskets which may not comply with construction requirements and fail to prevent contamination of the environment. Licensing is a proper method for enforcement of safety and health rules.

¶ 4 The State contends the trial court erred when it relied upon early equal protection cases and urges us to consider only more recent cases. Since we hold that the manufacture and sale of caskets is part and parcel of the funeral service business, and regulating that business and licensing qualified persons engaged therein is a proper exercise of the police power of the State, we need not consider that issue further. We reverse with directions to the lower court to enter judgment for State Board against Casket Company as prayed, which includes the requested injunction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

JOPLIN, P.J., concurs; JONES, V.C.J., dissents.