Hutchins v. Sperling

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hutchins v. Sperling

1957 OK 57, 316 P.2d 589, 1957 Okla. LEXIS 530

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 12, 1957

Docket37354

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1957 OK 57 (Hutchins v. Sperling) 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

Hutchins v. Sperling, 1957 OK 57, 316 P.2d 589, 1957 Okla. LEXIS 530 (Okla. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record reveals that the order overruling the plaintiffs’ in error motion for new trial was entered November 30, 1955. The petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this Court May 8, 1956. On January 21, 1956, an order was entered extending the time in which to perfect an appeal until March 1, 1956. Thereafter, on February 27, 1956, a second order was entered extending the time until April 30, 1956, both to make and serve case-made and to file appeal. The case-made, after service and notice, was finally settled on April 23, 1956. No further order extending the time in which to appeal is contained in the case-made.

It is apparent that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this case on appeal. The petition in error was not filed within three months from the date of the judgment or final order or within the time granted by an authorized extension of time in which to appeal. 12 O.S.1951, § 972. This is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived by the parties or overlooked by the Court. This Court will, upon its own motion, determine if its jurisdiction has been invoked. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Asendorf, 203 Okl. 263, 220 P.2d 272. If jurisdiction has not been acquired the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

*591 The Court acknowledges the aid of the Supreme Court Commissioners in the preparation of this opinion. After a tentative opinion was written by Commissioner James H. Nease and approved by Commissioners Jean R. Reed and J. W. Crawford, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this Court for examination and report to the Court. Thereafter, upon report and consideration in Conference, the foregoing opinion was adopted by the Court.

CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD and CARLILE, JJ., concur. WELCH, C. J., and DAVISON, J., dissent.

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

PER CURIAM.

The record reveals that the order overruling the plaintiffs’ in error motion for new trial was entered November 30, 1955. The petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this Court May 8, 1956. On January 21, 1956, an order was entered extending the time in which to perfect an appeal until March 1, 1956. Thereafter, on February 27, 1956, a second order was entered extending the time until April 30, 1956, both to make and serve case-made and to file appeal. The case-made, after service and notice, was finally settled on April 23, 1956. No further order extending the time in which to appeal is contained in the case-made.

It is apparent that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this case on appeal. The petition in error was not filed within three months from the date of the judgment or final order or within the time granted by an authorized extension of time in which to appeal. 12 O.S.1951, § 972. This is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived by the parties or overlooked by the Court. This Court will, upon its own motion, determine if its jurisdiction has been invoked. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Asendorf, 203 Okl. 263, 220 P.2d 272. If jurisdiction has not been acquired the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

*591 The Court acknowledges the aid of the Supreme Court Commissioners in the preparation of this opinion. After a tentative opinion was written by Commissioner James H. Nease and approved by Commissioners Jean R. Reed and J. W. Crawford, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this Court for examination and report to the Court. Thereafter, upon report and consideration in Conference, the foregoing opinion was adopted by the Court.

CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD and CARLILE, JJ., concur. WELCH, C. J., and DAVISON, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1957 OK 57, 316 P.2d 589, 1957 Okla. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchins-v-sperling-okla-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack