Mansell v. City of Lawton

877 P.2d 1120, 1994 WL 316933
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 29, 1994
Docket82589
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 877 P.2d 1120 (Mansell v. City of Lawton) 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
Mansell v. City of Lawton, 877 P.2d 1120, 1994 WL 316933 (Okla. 1994).

Opinions

SUMMERS, Justice.

The trial judge sustained a motion to dismiss, and a judge-signed minute to that effect was filed that same day on October 7, 1993. A journal entry of judgment was then filed on October 15, 1993. The petition in error was filed on Monday, November 15, 1993. Appellee moves to dismiss for untimeliness.

Effective October 1, 1993, a minute entry is not an appealable order. 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.2(C). That statute, which took effect that date, states in part:

The following shall not constitute a judgment, decree or appealable order: A minute entry; verdict; informal statement of the proceedings and relief awarded, including, but limited to, a letter to a party or parties indicating the ruling or instructions for preparing the judgment, decree or appealable order.

Id. § 696.2(C), (emphasis added).

Minute entries are usually considered to be the function of a clerk, but 12 O.S.1991 § 23 states that a judge may also prepare an entry in the form of a minute. As a matter of courthouse practice it may be titled as a [1121]*1121court minute order, court minute, minute order, minute, or have no title. This one had none. A minute contains a brief description of the order or judgment rendered. 12 O.S. 1991 § 23.

Section 696.2 also states that the time to appeal does not begin to run until the appeal-able order or judgment is prepared in a certain form and filed with the trial court clerk.

The time for appeal shall not begin to run until a written judgment, decree or appeal-able order, prepared in conformance with Section 10 of this act, is filed with the court clerk, regardless of whether the judgment, decree, or appealable order is effective when pronounced or when it is filed.

Id. § 696.2(D).

Section 10 of the act was codified at 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3, and requires the ap-pealable order or judgment to have a caption including the name of the court, the names and designation of the parties, the file number of the case, and the title of the instrument. It further requires a statement of the disposition, including the relief awarded, signature and title of the court, and other matters approved by the court.

A judgment or appealable order conforming to § 696.3 is “a jurisdictional prerequisite to the commencement of an appeal.” 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.2(C). See also 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 990A(A). Section 696.3 requires the appealable order to have a title. If an order has no title, or bears a title in some form using the word “minute”, and otherwise meets the description of a minute, we believe the Legislature intended it not to be appealable, 12 O.S. § 696.2(C), even though it may have been appealable prior to October 1, 1993. These recent statutory changes define the appealable event according to the form by which the decision is filed. 12 O.S.Supp.1993 §§ 696.2, 696.3. This minute entry is in a form that makes it not an appealable order. 12 O.S.Supp.1993 §§ 696.2, 696.3.

The journal entry of judgment filed on October 15, 1993 satisfies the form required by 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3. The petition in error must be filed within thirty days of the date the journal entry of judgment was filed in the trial court. 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 990A(A). Thirty days from October 15, 1993 was Sunday, November 14, 1993, and because of that the Appellant was authorized to file the petition in error on the following Monday, November 15, 1993. 25 O.S.1991 § 82.1. The petition in error is thus timely filed, the motion to dismiss is denied, and the appeal shall proceed.

HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., and ALMA WILSON, KAUGER and WATT, JJ., concur. SIMMS and OPALA, JJ., concur in result. HARGRAVE, J., dissents.

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

Related

LAUBACH v. LAUBACH
2022 OK 78 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2022)
PAYNE v. KERNS
2020 OK 31 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2020)
OKMULGEE COUNTY FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER, INC. v. MACKEY
2017 OK CIV APP 37 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2017)
Charles Sanders Homes, Inc. v. Cook & Associates, Engineering, Inc.
2016 OK CIV APP 45 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2015)
Doyle v. Smith
2009 OK CIV APP 5 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2008)
Bank IV Oklahoma, N.A. v. Southwestern Bank & Trust Co.
1997 OK 31 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1997)
McMillian v. Holcomb
1995 OK 117 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1995)
Corbit v. Williams
1995 OK 53 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1995)
Keel v. Wright
1995 OK 18 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1995)
Lucas v. Bishop
1995 OK 7 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1995)
Besecker v. Chilbert
1994 OK 125 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
Brown v. Green Country Softball Ass'n
1994 OK 124 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant
1994 OK 123 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
Matter of Estate of Robinson
1994 OK 112 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
Mansell v. City of Lawton
877 P.2d 1120 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
877 P.2d 1120, 1994 WL 316933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mansell-v-city-of-lawton-okla-1994.