Central Plastics Company v. Barton Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Central Plastics Company v. Barton Industries, Inc.

1991 OK 103, 818 P.2d 900, 62 O.B.A.J. 3114, 1991 Okla. LEXIS 111, 1991 WL 205582

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 14, 1991

Docket77659

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 1991 OK 103 (Central Plastics Company v. Barton Industries, Inc.) 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

Central Plastics Company v. Barton Industries, Inc., 1991 OK 103, 818 P.2d 900, 62 O.B.A.J. 3114, 1991 Okla. LEXIS 111, 1991 WL 205582 (Okla. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This appeal is taken from the denial of a motion to vacate default judgment against one of several defendants, leaving the action pending in the trial court as to the remaining defendants. The appellant has filed an application for direction, suggesting the prematurity of the appeal, explaining that the petition in error was filed as a precautionary measure due to uncertainty over the applicability of 12 O.S. 1991 § 1006.

The court finds that 12 O.S. 1991 § 1006 does not apply to postjudgment proceedings. This court is vested with jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order which “... vacates or refuses to vacate a final judgment.” 12 O.S. 1991 §§ 952(b)(2), 953. In such cases, the appellate court’s inquiry does not focus on the underlying judgment, but rather on the correctness of the trial court’s response to the motion to vacate, which is an independently appealable postjudgment event. Schepp v. Hess, 770 P.2d 34 (Okl.1989); Yery v. Yery, 629 P.2d 357 (Okl.1981).

This appeal shall proceed in its ordinary course, in the manner contemplated by the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, 12 O.S. 1990 Supp., Ch. 15, App. 2.

OPALA, C.J., HODGES, Y.C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ„ concur. HARGRAVE, J., dissents.

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

ORDER

This appeal is taken from the denial of a motion to vacate default judgment against one of several defendants, leaving the action pending in the trial court as to the remaining defendants. The appellant has filed an application for direction, suggesting the prematurity of the appeal, explaining that the petition in error was filed as a precautionary measure due to uncertainty over the applicability of 12 O.S. 1991 § 1006.

The court finds that 12 O.S. 1991 § 1006 does not apply to postjudgment proceedings. This court is vested with jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order which “... vacates or refuses to vacate a final judgment.” 12 O.S. 1991 §§ 952(b)(2), 953. In such cases, the appellate court’s inquiry does not focus on the underlying judgment, but rather on the correctness of the trial court’s response to the motion to vacate, which is an independently appealable postjudgment event. Schepp v. Hess, 770 P.2d 34 (Okl.1989); Yery v. Yery, 629 P.2d 357 (Okl.1981).

This appeal shall proceed in its ordinary course, in the manner contemplated by the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, 12 O.S. 1990 Supp., Ch. 15, App. 2.

OPALA, C.J., HODGES, Y.C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ„ concur. HARGRAVE, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 OK 103, 818 P.2d 900, 62 O.B.A.J. 3114, 1991 Okla. LEXIS 111, 1991 WL 205582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-plastics-company-v-barton-industries-inc-okla-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack