King v. Sherrill

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

King v. Sherrill

1972 OK 65, 496 P.2d 803, 1972 Okla. LEXIS 381

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 25, 1972

Docket45121

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 1972 OK 65 (King v. Sherrill) 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

King v. Sherrill, 1972 OK 65, 496 P.2d 803, 1972 Okla. LEXIS 381 (Okla. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

HODGES, Justice.

Petition in error was filed August 12, 1971, seeking review of a trial court judgment in a zoning matter. The final order in the trial court was denial of motion for new trial, entered on July 14, 1971. Time for preparation of the record expired January 14, 1972.

Appellant by application filed January 12, 1972 sought an extension of time for completion of the record, asserting loss by the court reporter of her stenographic notes. Appellees promptly interposed objection to allowance of the extension. From the application and ensuing motions filed by counsel for either side, it is clear that all parties learned of the difficulty sometime in October, 1971. Appellant, with that knowledge, sought no relief in the trial court and sought no relief in this *804 court until two days before expiration of the allowed six month interval, i. e., by application filed January 12, 1972. The relief sought at that time was merely extension of time for preparation of a record on appeal which under the circumstances then existent, and which had been existent since sometime in October, 1971, could never be prepared unless the lost stenographic notes were found.

By order entered February 7, 1972, this court directed Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of diligence in prosecution based upon failure to timely seek relief in the trial court under Civil Appeals Rules 1.22 or 1.-23, which rules contemplate narrative statement in lieu of a transcript of proceedings. Appellant at that time applied to the trial court for a new trial under 12 O.S.1971 § 651(9), based upon inability to prepare a record on appeal. By a certified copy of the trial court order disposing of that application, submitted to this court by Appellee in furtherance of his pending motion to dismiss, the trial court refused to grant a new trial.

It is the duty of the appealing party to cause to be prepared and filed, in appeal to this court, a sufficient record of trial court proceeding to show cause for reversal. Educators Automobile Insurance Co. v. Jones, Okl., 428 P.2d 277. Where, as in this case, it is impossible to prepare a record for appellate review, the appealing party must, upon learning of this dilemma, avail himself promptly of his statutory remedy. Failure to pursue this remedy with diligence and dispatch subjects his appeal to dismissal. Upon the facts submitted, we find the Appellant has not exercised due diligence in seeking to remedy the deficiency of a record on appeal, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

All Justices concur.

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

HODGES, Justice.

Petition in error was filed August 12, 1971, seeking review of a trial court judgment in a zoning matter. The final order in the trial court was denial of motion for new trial, entered on July 14, 1971. Time for preparation of the record expired January 14, 1972.

Appellant by application filed January 12, 1972 sought an extension of time for completion of the record, asserting loss by the court reporter of her stenographic notes. Appellees promptly interposed objection to allowance of the extension. From the application and ensuing motions filed by counsel for either side, it is clear that all parties learned of the difficulty sometime in October, 1971. Appellant, with that knowledge, sought no relief in the trial court and sought no relief in this *804 court until two days before expiration of the allowed six month interval, i. e., by application filed January 12, 1972. The relief sought at that time was merely extension of time for preparation of a record on appeal which under the circumstances then existent, and which had been existent since sometime in October, 1971, could never be prepared unless the lost stenographic notes were found.

By order entered February 7, 1972, this court directed Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of diligence in prosecution based upon failure to timely seek relief in the trial court under Civil Appeals Rules 1.22 or 1.-23, which rules contemplate narrative statement in lieu of a transcript of proceedings. Appellant at that time applied to the trial court for a new trial under 12 O.S.1971 § 651(9), based upon inability to prepare a record on appeal. By a certified copy of the trial court order disposing of that application, submitted to this court by Appellee in furtherance of his pending motion to dismiss, the trial court refused to grant a new trial.

It is the duty of the appealing party to cause to be prepared and filed, in appeal to this court, a sufficient record of trial court proceeding to show cause for reversal. Educators Automobile Insurance Co. v. Jones, Okl., 428 P.2d 277. Where, as in this case, it is impossible to prepare a record for appellate review, the appealing party must, upon learning of this dilemma, avail himself promptly of his statutory remedy. Failure to pursue this remedy with diligence and dispatch subjects his appeal to dismissal. Upon the facts submitted, we find the Appellant has not exercised due diligence in seeking to remedy the deficiency of a record on appeal, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

All Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1972 OK 65, 496 P.2d 803, 1972 Okla. LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-sherrill-okla-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack