Besecker v. Chilbert

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Besecker v. Chilbert

1994 OK 125, 887 P.2d 1286, 65 O.B.A.J. 3833, 1994 Okla. LEXIS 147, 1994 WL 642713

Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided November 10, 1994·No. No. 84323·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

ORDER

Appellee’s motion to dismiss is denied. This appeal was timely commenced within 30 days of the filing of an order prepared in conformance with 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3, 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 990A. The trial court’s March 1 ruling was not prepared in conformance with 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3, Mansell v. City of Lawton, 877 P.2d 1120 (Okl.1994).

HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., and ALMA WILSON, KAUGER, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur. SIMMS, HARGRAVE and OPALA, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Appellee’s motion to dismiss is denied. This appeal was timely commenced within 30 days of the filing of an order prepared in conformance with 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3, 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 990A. The trial court’s March 1 ruling was not prepared in conformance with 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3, Mansell v. City of Lawton, 877 P.2d 1120 (Okl.1994).

HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., and ALMA WILSON, KAUGER, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur. SIMMS, HARGRAVE and OPALA, JJ., dissent.

Besecker v. Chilbert, 1994 OK 125, 887 P.2d 1286, 65 O.B.A.J. 3833, 1994 Okla. LEXIS 147, 1994 WL 642713 (Okla. 1994).

Pincite

1994 OK 125 (Besecker v. Chilbert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related