Brinkley v. Little

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Brinkley v. Little

2000 OK CIV APP 62, 9 P.3d 97, 71 O.B.A.J. 1610, 2000 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 20, 2000 WL 641088

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 27, 2000

DocketNo. 92,486

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2000 OK CIV APP 62 (Brinkley v. Little) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brinkley v. Little, 2000 OK CIV APP 62, 9 P.3d 97, 71 O.B.A.J. 1610, 2000 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 20, 2000 WL 641088 (Okla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[98]*98ORDER

T1 NOW on this 27th day of April, 2000, the above-styled matter comes on for consideration, and the Court FINDS:

1. On March 3, 2000, this Court filed its opinion in the above-styled matter affirming the trial court's order granting judgment to Plaintiff/Appeliee Julius R. Brinkley, a/k/a Bob Brinkley on Brinkley's claims for recovery of sums allegedly due under a construction contract with Defendants/Appellants Duane L. Little, a/k/a Duane Little, and Nancy J. Little, Husband and Wife, and for foreclosure of liens securing such payment. '

2. On March 10, 2000, Brinkley filed a motion for attorney's fees as appellate prevailing party on his lien foreclosure claim. 42 0.8. § 176.

3. On April 19, 2000, Brinkley and the Littles filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss this appeal, representing settlement of the controversy inter se.

4. The appellate courts are not required to dismiss an appeal on representation of settlement by the parties after an appellate decision on the merits. See, eg., Goldman v. Goldman, 1994 OK 111, 5, 883 P.2d 164, 166. The parties joint motion to dismiss the appeal should therefore be denied.

5. However, insofar as Brinkley's motion for appellate attorney's fee remains pending, on representation of settlement of the underlying controversy, and on Brinkley's joinder on the motion to dismiss, the motion for appellate attorney's fees should be dismissed.

12 Insofar as the parties' joint motion seeks dismissal of the appeal, the motion to dismiss is consequently DENIED. Insofar as the parties' joint motion seeks dismissal of Brinkley's motion for appellate attorney's fees, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

13 DONE IN CONFERENCE OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS this 27th day of April, 2000.

T4 CAROL M. HANSEN, Vice-Chief Judge. 15 JONES, J., and JOPLIN, J., concur.

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