Blackwelder v. Naylor

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Blackwelder v. Naylor

1967 OK 222, 439 P.2d 202

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 27, 1967

Docket42648

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1967 OK 222 (Blackwelder v. Naylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blackwelder v. Naylor, 1967 OK 222, 439 P.2d 202 (Okla. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

LAVENDER, Justice.

This cause comes on for adjudication on the motion to dismiss by the defendant in error and the responsive application thereto *203 by the plaintiff ⅛ error. The ground for said motion is that these proceedings were not commenced within the time provided for by statute.

The case made attached to the petition in error was settled in the court below on June 22, 1967. The petition in error with case made attached was not filed in this court until ■ August 31, 1967. The controlling statute, 12 O.S.Supp.1963 § 972(a) requires all proceedings in this court by case made to be commenced within twenty days from the date the case made is settled, and in all cases such appellate proceedings shall be commenced within six months from the date of the judgment or final order complained of.

This court in DeWees v. Cedarbaum, Okl., 381 P.2d 830, by an opinion which became final May 13, 1963, construed 12 O.S. 1961, § 962 as authorizing an extension of time for the filing of a proceeding in error limited only by the maximum time allowed for the commencement of such proceedings as provided by 12 O.S.1961, § 972. '

The legislature amended § 962, supra, by the adoption of 12 O.S.Supp.1965 § 962(a) which deleted the authority to extend the time for the filing of proceedings in error and retained the following language, “ * * [Tjhis section shall in no manner be' construed as affecting the statutes fixing the limit of time within which an appeal or proceeding in error may be begun in the appellate court.”

Therefore, this court is' of the opinion that pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.1967 § 972(a) proceedings in this court by case made must be commenced within. twenty days from the date the case made is settled in the trial court and that' such time may not be extended by either this court or the trial court.

An appeal must be brought within the time and in the manner provided by statute and if not the same will be dismissed. Reed v. Moore, Okl., 386 P.2d 763; Albert v. Card, Okl., 317 P.2d 766.

Considering the opinion of this court that it does not have jurisdiction of this cause, the application of the plaintiff in error for leave to withdraw the case made will not be considered.

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

All the Justices concur.

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

LAVENDER, Justice.

This cause comes on for adjudication on the motion to dismiss by the defendant in error and the responsive application thereto *203 by the plaintiff ⅛ error. The ground for said motion is that these proceedings were not commenced within the time provided for by statute.

The case made attached to the petition in error was settled in the court below on June 22, 1967. The petition in error with case made attached was not filed in this court until ■ August 31, 1967. The controlling statute, 12 O.S.Supp.1963 § 972(a) requires all proceedings in this court by case made to be commenced within twenty days from the date the case made is settled, and in all cases such appellate proceedings shall be commenced within six months from the date of the judgment or final order complained of.

This court in DeWees v. Cedarbaum, Okl., 381 P.2d 830, by an opinion which became final May 13, 1963, construed 12 O.S. 1961, § 962 as authorizing an extension of time for the filing of a proceeding in error limited only by the maximum time allowed for the commencement of such proceedings as provided by 12 O.S.1961, § 972. '

The legislature amended § 962, supra, by the adoption of 12 O.S.Supp.1965 § 962(a) which deleted the authority to extend the time for the filing of proceedings in error and retained the following language, “ * * [Tjhis section shall in no manner be' construed as affecting the statutes fixing the limit of time within which an appeal or proceeding in error may be begun in the appellate court.”

Therefore, this court is' of the opinion that pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.1967 § 972(a) proceedings in this court by case made must be commenced within. twenty days from the date the case made is settled in the trial court and that' such time may not be extended by either this court or the trial court.

An appeal must be brought within the time and in the manner provided by statute and if not the same will be dismissed. Reed v. Moore, Okl., 386 P.2d 763; Albert v. Card, Okl., 317 P.2d 766.

Considering the opinion of this court that it does not have jurisdiction of this cause, the application of the plaintiff in error for leave to withdraw the case made will not be considered.

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1967 OK 222, 439 P.2d 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackwelder-v-naylor-okla-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack