Richmond v. Work

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Richmond v. Work

2010 OK 86, 253 P.3d 52, 2010 Okla. LEXIS 90, 2010 WL 4942978

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 6, 2010

Docket108,860

StatusPublished

This text of 2010 OK 86 (Richmond v. Work) 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

Richmond v. Work, 2010 OK 86, 253 P.3d 52, 2010 Okla. LEXIS 90, 2010 WL 4942978 (Okla. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

T1 The petitioners' application to assume original jurisdiction is granted. A writ is hereby issued, prohibiting the respondent judge Don A. Work from enforcing his order filed October 21, 2010, in Chesapeake Operating, Inc., v. Leslie Richmond et al., Woodward County District Court Case No. CV-2008-283, which order modified the appraisers' report without compliance with 52 0.8. 318.5(F). Under this statute, an appraiser's report can only be modified following a hearing on an exception to the report that was filed within thirty (80) days of the date the appraisers' report was filed with the Court. *53 Neither party filed a timely exception in the case at hand.

T2 EDMONDSON, C.J., TAYLOR, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, WATT, WINCHESTER, COLBERT, and REIF, JJ., concur. 3 KAUGER, J., not participating.

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

ORDER

T1 The petitioners' application to assume original jurisdiction is granted. A writ is hereby issued, prohibiting the respondent judge Don A. Work from enforcing his order filed October 21, 2010, in Chesapeake Operating, Inc., v. Leslie Richmond et al., Woodward County District Court Case No. CV-2008-283, which order modified the appraisers' report without compliance with 52 0.8. 318.5(F). Under this statute, an appraiser's report can only be modified following a hearing on an exception to the report that was filed within thirty (80) days of the date the appraisers' report was filed with the Court. *53 Neither party filed a timely exception in the case at hand.

T2 EDMONDSON, C.J., TAYLOR, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, WATT, WINCHESTER, COLBERT, and REIF, JJ., concur. 3 KAUGER, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2010 OK 86, 253 P.3d 52, 2010 Okla. LEXIS 90, 2010 WL 4942978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-v-work-okla-2010.