Dow Corning Corp. v. Owens

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Dow Corning Corp. v. Owens

1992 OK 152, 842 P.2d 749, 63 O.B.A.J. 3411, 1992 Okla. LEXIS 211, 1992 WL 345849

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 24, 1992

DocketNos. 79991, 79992

StatusPublished

This text of 1992 OK 152 (Dow Corning Corp. v. Owens) 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

Dow Corning Corp. v. Owens, 1992 OK 152, 842 P.2d 749, 63 O.B.A.J. 3411, 1992 Okla. LEXIS 211, 1992 WL 345849 (Okla. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Original jurisdiction is assumed. The writ of prohibition is denied. Pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 2014(A), leave to file a third-party petition more than ten (10) days after service of an original answer must be obtained by motion upon notice to all parties to the action. Third-party defendants sought to be brought in by the third-party petition are not parties to the action until the third-party petition is filed. Because the ten-day period for impleading third-party defendants is not intended for such party’s benefit, the third-party defendant cannot object if the impleading is filed more than ten days after service of the answer. The 10-day limit on impleading third parties is not to be viewed as a jurisdictional barrier. 12 O.S.1991 § 2014(A); See G. Fraser, “Counterclaims, Cross-Claims, & Third-Party Claims under the Oklahoma Pleading Code,” 39 Okla.L.Rev. 1, 18 (1986). See also, West v. Hawker, 237 N.W.2d 802, 807 (Iowa 1976); 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1455, p. 434 (West 1990).

We note that none of the parties to the action, that is, those who were required by 12 O.S.1991 § 2014(A) to be notified of a parties request for leave to file a third party petition, made any objection to the filing of the petition.

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

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

ORDER

Original jurisdiction is assumed. The writ of prohibition is denied. Pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 2014(A), leave to file a third-party petition more than ten (10) days after service of an original answer must be obtained by motion upon notice to all parties to the action. Third-party defendants sought to be brought in by the third-party petition are not parties to the action until the third-party petition is filed. Because the ten-day period for impleading third-party defendants is not intended for such party’s benefit, the third-party defendant cannot object if the impleading is filed more than ten days after service of the answer. The 10-day limit on impleading third parties is not to be viewed as a jurisdictional barrier. 12 O.S.1991 § 2014(A); See G. Fraser, “Counterclaims, Cross-Claims, & Third-Party Claims under the Oklahoma Pleading Code,” 39 Okla.L.Rev. 1, 18 (1986). See also, West v. Hawker, 237 N.W.2d 802, 807 (Iowa 1976); 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1455, p. 434 (West 1990).

We note that none of the parties to the action, that is, those who were required by 12 O.S.1991 § 2014(A) to be notified of a parties request for leave to file a third party petition, made any objection to the filing of the petition.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 OK 152, 842 P.2d 749, 63 O.B.A.J. 3411, 1992 Okla. LEXIS 211, 1992 WL 345849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dow-corning-corp-v-owens-okla-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack