Heiman v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
OPALA, Chief Justice.
The two issues presented in this certiora-ri proceeding are: (1) Is the trial court’s dismissal order, which preceded the judgment from which the defendants appealed, facially void for want of constitutionally sufficient notice? and (2) Was the Court of Appeals correct in dismissing the appeal? We answer the first question in the affirmative, and the second in the negative.
I
THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION
A group of working interest owners in a gas well (plaintiffs or owners) sued for an accounting and “cash balancing” to recover their pro rata shares of production sales…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Bartlett v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of SapulpaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Booth v. McKnightSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- Dimon v. MansyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
- Stites v. DUIT Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- Messenger v. MessengerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Norman v. Trison Development Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.