Dotson v. Rainbolt

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Dotson v. Rainbolt

835 P.2d 870, 1992 WL 162541

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 14, 1992

Docket79632

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 835 P.2d 870 (Dotson v. Rainbolt) 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

Dotson v. Rainbolt, 835 P.2d 870, 1992 WL 162541 (Okla. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

On June 16, 1992, the trial judge filed an order, dismissing two of seven defendants from the action, and entering summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants on all of plaintiffs’ claims except plaintiffs’ fraud claim. Appellants brought this appeal and appellees filed motions to dismiss.

Appellees’ motions to dismiss are granted and this appeal is dismissed as premature. The June 16, 1992 order of the district court, which dismisses two defendants from the action, and grants summary judgment in favor of remaining five defendants on all of plaintiffs’ claims except the fraud claim, is not a final order. In a multiparty, multi-claim case, an order which dismisses fewer than all of the defendants is not a final order unless the order expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the filing of a judgment. 12 O.S.1991 § 1006. The case of Davis v. Dickerson, 803 P.2d 1170 (Okl. App.1990), which held that an order disposing of all of the issues as to one defendant is a final order, was decided prior to the enactment of 12 O.S.1991 § 1006 and does not govern appeals from orders or judgments filed after January 1, 1991. Any order which adjudicates only one of several theories of recovery is not a final order, and the trial court may not direct the filing of a separate judgment. ' 12 O.S.1991 § 1006, Bar Committee Comments to § 1006.

OPALA, C.J., HODGES, V.C.J., and SIMMS, HARGRAVE and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.

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

ORDER

On June 16, 1992, the trial judge filed an order, dismissing two of seven defendants from the action, and entering summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants on all of plaintiffs’ claims except plaintiffs’ fraud claim. Appellants brought this appeal and appellees filed motions to dismiss.

Appellees’ motions to dismiss are granted and this appeal is dismissed as premature. The June 16, 1992 order of the district court, which dismisses two defendants from the action, and grants summary judgment in favor of remaining five defendants on all of plaintiffs’ claims except the fraud claim, is not a final order. In a multiparty, multi-claim case, an order which dismisses fewer than all of the defendants is not a final order unless the order expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the filing of a judgment. 12 O.S.1991 § 1006. The case of Davis v. Dickerson, 803 P.2d 1170 (Okl. App.1990), which held that an order disposing of all of the issues as to one defendant is a final order, was decided prior to the enactment of 12 O.S.1991 § 1006 and does not govern appeals from orders or judgments filed after January 1, 1991. Any order which adjudicates only one of several theories of recovery is not a final order, and the trial court may not direct the filing of a separate judgment. ' 12 O.S.1991 § 1006, Bar Committee Comments to § 1006.

OPALA, C.J., HODGES, V.C.J., and SIMMS, HARGRAVE and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 P.2d 870, 1992 WL 162541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dotson-v-rainbolt-okla-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack