Estate of Steen v. Epperson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Estate of Steen v. Epperson

1995 OK 86, 909 P.2d 62, 66 O.B.A.J. 2775, 1995 Okla. LEXIS 105, 1995 WL 756281

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 18, 1995

DocketNo. 76772

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1995 OK 86 (Estate of Steen v. Epperson) 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

Estate of Steen v. Epperson, 1995 OK 86, 909 P.2d 62, 66 O.B.A.J. 2775, 1995 Okla. LEXIS 105, 1995 WL 756281 (Okla. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER APPROVING COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FOR PUBLICATION AS AMENDED BY THIS ORDER

Certiorari was previously granted by this court. For the following reason, we have determined that the memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division III rendered on March 3,1992 should be amended. While we concur in the findings expressed therein, we are of the view that wherever the term “jurisdiction” appears, in reference to the jurisdiction of the district judge sitting in probate, the term “authority” be used instead. Although, under the 1967 constitutional amendment a district judge now has unlimited “jurisdiction” to hear probate matters, the “authority” of the district judge remains limited by the statutory restrictions set forth in the probate statutes until such time as the legislature amends them.

The opinion in all other respects remains the same. Further, because we are of the view that the amended opinion will add clarity to the law it is approved for publication in the official reporter pursuant to 20 O.S.1991 § 30.5 and accorded precedential value.

/s/ Alma Wilson Chief Justice

ALMA WILSON, C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., concur. KAUGER, V.C.J., and SUMMERS, J., dissent. WATT, J., dissents for the reasons set out in Wilson v. Kane, 852 P.2d 717 (Okla.1993).

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

ORDER APPROVING COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FOR PUBLICATION AS AMENDED BY THIS ORDER

Certiorari was previously granted by this court. For the following reason, we have determined that the memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division III rendered on March 3,1992 should be amended. While we concur in the findings expressed therein, we are of the view that wherever the term “jurisdiction” appears, in reference to the jurisdiction of the district judge sitting in probate, the term “authority” be used instead. Although, under the 1967 constitutional amendment a district judge now has unlimited “jurisdiction” to hear probate matters, the “authority” of the district judge remains limited by the statutory restrictions set forth in the probate statutes until such time as the legislature amends them.

The opinion in all other respects remains the same. Further, because we are of the view that the amended opinion will add clarity to the law it is approved for publication in the official reporter pursuant to 20 O.S.1991 § 30.5 and accorded precedential value.

/s/ Alma Wilson Chief Justice

ALMA WILSON, C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., concur. KAUGER, V.C.J., and SUMMERS, J., dissent. WATT, J., dissents for the reasons set out in Wilson v. Kane, 852 P.2d 717 (Okla.1993).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 OK 86, 909 P.2d 62, 66 O.B.A.J. 2775, 1995 Okla. LEXIS 105, 1995 WL 756281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-steen-v-epperson-okla-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack