McCullough v. Mathews

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McCullough v. Mathews

1995 OK 90, 918 P.2d 25, 1995 WL 601376

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

Docket85806

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1995 OK 90 (McCullough v. Mathews) 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

McCullough v. Mathews, 1995 OK 90, 918 P.2d 25, 1995 WL 601376 (Okla. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Original jurisdiction is assumed. Let the writ issue prohibiting respondent judge, or any other assigned judge, from enforcing that portion of the order dated May 11,1995, in Cause No. CJ-93-519-66 on the docket of the District Court, Oklahoma County, prohibiting an attorney or lawyer from being the representative of the person to be examined and from being present at that examination. There is no such restriction in 12 O.S.1994 § 3235(D). The role of that statutory representative, whether an attorney or otherwise, is generally passive in nature and limited to that of an observer.

Respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing hand written notes to be taken by the representative. However, audio recording of the examination should be allowed.

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

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

ORDER

Original jurisdiction is assumed. Let the writ issue prohibiting respondent judge, or any other assigned judge, from enforcing that portion of the order dated May 11,1995, in Cause No. CJ-93-519-66 on the docket of the District Court, Oklahoma County, prohibiting an attorney or lawyer from being the representative of the person to be examined and from being present at that examination. There is no such restriction in 12 O.S.1994 § 3235(D). The role of that statutory representative, whether an attorney or otherwise, is generally passive in nature and limited to that of an observer.

Respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing hand written notes to be taken by the representative. However, audio recording of the examination should be allowed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 OK 90, 918 P.2d 25, 1995 WL 601376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-mathews-okla-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack