Peoria Corp. v. Lemay

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Peoria Corp. v. Lemay

1995 OK 45, 895 P.2d 1342, 66 O.B.A.J. 1587, 1995 Okla. LEXIS 57, 1995 WL 265149

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 9, 1995

DocketNo. 82866

StatusPublished

This text of 1995 OK 45 (Peoria Corp. v. Lemay) 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

Peoria Corp. v. Lemay, 1995 OK 45, 895 P.2d 1342, 66 O.B.A.J. 1587, 1995 Okla. LEXIS 57, 1995 WL 265149 (Okla. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER

ALMA WILSON, Chief Justice.

This appeal was dismissed as premature on September 27, 1994, 895 P.2d 1340. On October 17, 1994, Lemay filed an amended petition in error with an instrument attached purporting to be the order denying a motion to vacate a judgment. Appellee responded and moved to dismiss the appeal because the order on the motion to vacate had not been filed in the District Court.

The instrument attached to De-may’s amended petition in error is an order denying a motion to vacate. This order does not appear in the record certified to us by the Clerk of the District Court. The trial court record shows no appealable order on the motion to vacate conforming to 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3. We also note that Lemay’s petition in error of November 10, 1994 was not accompanied with the required fee. 20 O.S.Supp.1993 § 15. After an ap[1343]*1343peal is dismissed as premature a new appeal may be filed when accompanied by the required filing fee. 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 990A(F); Matter of K.L.F., 878 P.2d 1067 (Okla.1994). This appeal is dismissed as premature. 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 990A(F).

KAUGER, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur. SIMMS, J., concurs specially. OP ALA, J., concurs and files opinion.

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

ORDER

ALMA WILSON, Chief Justice.

This appeal was dismissed as premature on September 27, 1994, 895 P.2d 1340. On October 17, 1994, Lemay filed an amended petition in error with an instrument attached purporting to be the order denying a motion to vacate a judgment. Appellee responded and moved to dismiss the appeal because the order on the motion to vacate had not been filed in the District Court.

The instrument attached to De-may’s amended petition in error is an order denying a motion to vacate. This order does not appear in the record certified to us by the Clerk of the District Court. The trial court record shows no appealable order on the motion to vacate conforming to 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 696.3. We also note that Lemay’s petition in error of November 10, 1994 was not accompanied with the required fee. 20 O.S.Supp.1993 § 15. After an ap[1343]*1343peal is dismissed as premature a new appeal may be filed when accompanied by the required filing fee. 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 990A(F); Matter of K.L.F., 878 P.2d 1067 (Okla.1994). This appeal is dismissed as premature. 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 990A(F).

KAUGER, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur. SIMMS, J., concurs specially. OP ALA, J., concurs and files opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 OK 45, 895 P.2d 1342, 66 O.B.A.J. 1587, 1995 Okla. LEXIS 57, 1995 WL 265149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoria-corp-v-lemay-okla-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack