Legal Opinion · Dissent

Barnthouse v. City of Edmond

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided April 22, 2003No. 97,350Published

1DissentSummers, J.

¶ 1 I respectfully dissent for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that the Court exercises appellate jurisdiction over what appear to be non-appealable orders. I further dissent because Cochran is entitled to qualified immunity.

¶ 2 I would first request the parties to comment on whether the trial court's orders were immediately appealable because of pending claims left unadjudicated in the trial court. If the orders are indeed not immediately appealable, I would recast a portion of Plaintiffs' petition in error as an application for an extraordinary writ on the issue of Cochran's…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  4. City of Oklahoma v. TuttleSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination UnitSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API