Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Barr

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Barr

2008 OK 46, 187 P.3d 718, 2008 Okla. LEXIS 48, 2008 WL 2042832

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 13, 2008

Docket105,264

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2008 OK 46 (Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Barr) 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

Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Barr, 2008 OK 46, 187 P.3d 718, 2008 Okla. LEXIS 48, 2008 WL 2042832 (Okla. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The motion to dismiss of appellee Ken Felker, d/b/a Ken Felker & Associates, is treated as a motion to limit the sought scope of review on appeal. Appellee Felker's motion is granted. The seope of review to be afforded in this appeal is limited by excluding from its reach the order dismissing the third-party claim, filed below on July 13, 2007, and the order denying the motion to reconsider and making that order final pursuant to 12 0.9.2001 § 994. The latter order was filed below September 26, 2007. The July 13, 2007 order fully disposes of the third-party claim and leaves no unresolved issues on the merits of that claim. In short, it completely adjudicates a legally severable claim which stands fully decided. See Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority v. City of Oklahoma City, 2005 OK 2, 110 P.3d 550, 557. Because the trial court's September 26, 2007 order contained the express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and the express direction for the filing of judgment, that order became immediately appealable on September 26, 2007. 12 O.S. Supp. 2001 § 994. See also Patmon v. Block, 1993 OK 53, ¶ 7, 851 P.2d 539. This appeal, which was not commenced until November 10, 2007, more than 30 days later, is hence untimely for review of the September 26, 2007 trial court's order. 12 O.S. Supp.2007 § 990.24.

As restricted by today's order, this appeal shall proceed for review of plaintiff's judgment against appellant, which was filed below on October 11, 2007.

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2008.

/s/ James R. Winchester CHIEF JUSTICE

VOTE TO ADOPT THE ORDER:

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

VOTE TO APPROVE THE ORDERS OFFICIAL PUBLICATION:

WINCHESTER, C.J., EDMONDSON, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, KAUGER, WATT, COLBERT and REIF, JJ., concur.

TAYLOR, J., not participating.

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

ORDER

The motion to dismiss of appellee Ken Felker, d/b/a Ken Felker & Associates, is treated as a motion to limit the sought scope of review on appeal. Appellee Felker's motion is granted. The seope of review to be afforded in this appeal is limited by excluding from its reach the order dismissing the third-party claim, filed below on July 13, 2007, and the order denying the motion to reconsider and making that order final pursuant to 12 0.9.2001 § 994. The latter order was filed below September 26, 2007. The July 13, 2007 order fully disposes of the third-party claim and leaves no unresolved issues on the merits of that claim. In short, it completely adjudicates a legally severable claim which stands fully decided. See Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority v. City of Oklahoma City, 2005 OK 2, 110 P.3d 550, 557. Because the trial court's September 26, 2007 order contained the express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and the express direction for the filing of judgment, that order became immediately appealable on September 26, 2007. 12 O.S. Supp. 2001 § 994. See also Patmon v. Block, 1993 OK 53, ¶ 7, 851 P.2d 539. This appeal, which was not commenced until November 10, 2007, more than 30 days later, is hence untimely for review of the September 26, 2007 trial court's order. 12 O.S. Supp.2007 § 990.24.

As restricted by today's order, this appeal shall proceed for review of plaintiff's judgment against appellant, which was filed below on October 11, 2007.

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2008.

/s/ James R. Winchester CHIEF JUSTICE

VOTE TO ADOPT THE ORDER:

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

VOTE TO APPROVE THE ORDERS OFFICIAL PUBLICATION:

WINCHESTER, C.J., EDMONDSON, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, KAUGER, WATT, COLBERT and REIF, JJ., concur.

TAYLOR, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2008 OK 46, 187 P.3d 718, 2008 Okla. LEXIS 48, 2008 WL 2042832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwestern-bell-yellow-pages-inc-v-barr-okla-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack