Chemco Products, Inc. v. Moley Produce Company, Inc.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Chemco Products, Inc. v. Moley Produce Company, Inc.

1980 OK 122, 615 P.2d 300

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 13, 1980

Docket55039

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 1980 OK 122 (Chemco Products, Inc. v. Moley Produce Company, 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

Chemco Products, Inc. v. Moley Produce Company, Inc., 1980 OK 122, 615 P.2d 300 (Okla. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPALA, Justice:

This appeal is sought to be prosecuted from a decision which vacates in part a default judgment. It grants the defendant-appellant a new trial on the issue of damages, but leaves undisturbed the adverse prior default adjudication of its liability. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal as premature because it is sought to be prosecuted from an interlocutory decision. We hold the appeal is properly here because the order in question falls within the category of those which are reviewable by right under the terms of 12 O.S.1971 § 952(b)2.

It is hornbook law that any intermediate or interlocutory order — be it one rendered in pre-judgment or post-judgment stages — which falls into a class of decisions from which an appeal is authorized by stat *301 ute is reviewable by right Attaway v. Watkins, 171 Okl. 102, 41 P.2d 914, 915 [1935]. The terms of 12 O.S.1971 § 952(b)2 set forth, inter alia, that an order which (a) “grants or refuses [to grant] a new trial” or (b) “vacates or refuses to vacate a final judgment” is subject to review in this court. An order which vacates a judgment is analogous to, or the functional equivalent of, one that grants a new trial. It is hence reviewable by right. Lamme v. Skelton, 106 Okl. 214, 233 P. 705 [1923]; Pennsylvania Co. v. Potter, 108 Okl. 49, 233 P. 700 [1925]; B —R Electric & Telephone Mfg. Co. v. Town of Wewoka, 113 Okl. 225, 239 P. 919, 920 [1925]; Halliburton et al. v. Williams, 166 Okl. 248, 27 P.2d 360 [1933]; Busby v. Eaves, 205 Okl. 346, 237 P.2d 445, 448 [1951]. An order granting a partial new trial is appealable to the same extent as one which allows a complete retrial. Hallford v. Schumacher, Okl., 323 P.2d 989 [1958]; Holland v. Sears, Okl., 348 P.2d 538 [1960]. A decision which grants partial new trial after vacating a prior judgment in the exercise of powers under 12 O.S.1971 § 1031 falls into the very same functional — though not procedural — category of dispositions reviewable by right as does one which allows partial retrial upon a new trial motion pursuant to 12 O.S.1971 § 651. An order declining to grant a complete retrial and one which refuses to vacate the entire judgment stand under the same rubric of reviewability. Each is but the functional equivalent of the other. Price v. Price, Okl., 471 P.2d 894 [1970]; Attaway v. Watkins, supra.

In short, the order from which this appeal is sought to be prosecuted is reviewable by right both because it (a) grants a partial new trial and (b) vacates in part a final judgment. 12 O.S.1971 § 952(b)2. Ambrister v. Donehew et al., 183 Okl. 595, 83 P.2d 544, 546 [1938]; Magnolia Pipe Line Co. v. Ricks, 190 Okl. 145, 121 P.2d 570 [1942],

Motion to dismiss is denied.

LAVENDER, C. J., IRWIN, V. C. J., and WILLIAMS, BARNES and SIMMS, JJ., concur.

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

OPALA, Justice:

This appeal is sought to be prosecuted from a decision which vacates in part a default judgment. It grants the defendant-appellant a new trial on the issue of damages, but leaves undisturbed the adverse prior default adjudication of its liability. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal as premature because it is sought to be prosecuted from an interlocutory decision. We hold the appeal is properly here because the order in question falls within the category of those which are reviewable by right under the terms of 12 O.S.1971 § 952(b)2.

It is hornbook law that any intermediate or interlocutory order — be it one rendered in pre-judgment or post-judgment stages — which falls into a class of decisions from which an appeal is authorized by stat *301 ute is reviewable by right Attaway v. Watkins, 171 Okl. 102, 41 P.2d 914, 915 [1935]. The terms of 12 O.S.1971 § 952(b)2 set forth, inter alia, that an order which (a) “grants or refuses [to grant] a new trial” or (b) “vacates or refuses to vacate a final judgment” is subject to review in this court. An order which vacates a judgment is analogous to, or the functional equivalent of, one that grants a new trial. It is hence reviewable by right. Lamme v. Skelton, 106 Okl. 214, 233 P. 705 [1923]; Pennsylvania Co. v. Potter, 108 Okl. 49, 233 P. 700 [1925]; B —R Electric & Telephone Mfg. Co. v. Town of Wewoka, 113 Okl. 225, 239 P. 919, 920 [1925]; Halliburton et al. v. Williams, 166 Okl. 248, 27 P.2d 360 [1933]; Busby v. Eaves, 205 Okl. 346, 237 P.2d 445, 448 [1951]. An order granting a partial new trial is appealable to the same extent as one which allows a complete retrial. Hallford v. Schumacher, Okl., 323 P.2d 989 [1958]; Holland v. Sears, Okl., 348 P.2d 538 [1960]. A decision which grants partial new trial after vacating a prior judgment in the exercise of powers under 12 O.S.1971 § 1031 falls into the very same functional — though not procedural — category of dispositions reviewable by right as does one which allows partial retrial upon a new trial motion pursuant to 12 O.S.1971 § 651. An order declining to grant a complete retrial and one which refuses to vacate the entire judgment stand under the same rubric of reviewability. Each is but the functional equivalent of the other. Price v. Price, Okl., 471 P.2d 894 [1970]; Attaway v. Watkins, supra.

In short, the order from which this appeal is sought to be prosecuted is reviewable by right both because it (a) grants a partial new trial and (b) vacates in part a final judgment. 12 O.S.1971 § 952(b)2. Ambrister v. Donehew et al., 183 Okl. 595, 83 P.2d 544, 546 [1938]; Magnolia Pipe Line Co. v. Ricks, 190 Okl. 145, 121 P.2d 570 [1942],

Motion to dismiss is denied.

LAVENDER, C. J., IRWIN, V. C. J., and WILLIAMS, BARNES and SIMMS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1980 OK 122, 615 P.2d 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chemco-products-inc-v-moley-produce-company-inc-okla-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack