Legal Opinion

Wall v. Marouk

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 4, 2013No. 109,005PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KAUGER, J.;

{1 The dispositive issue presented is whether, in the aftermath of Zeier v. Zim-mer, 2006 OK 98, 152 P.3d 861, the legislative amendment to 12 0.8.2011 § 19 1, removed the unconstitutional infirmity from the requirement of an affidavit of merit in any civil action for professional negligence. An examination of the Okla. Const. art. 5, § 46 2, art. *7782, § 6 3, 63 0.8.2011 § 1-1708.1C, as well as prior case law, leads to the inevitable conclusion that it did not. We hold that it is a special law regulating the practice of law and that it places an impermissible financial burden on…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. PorterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
  2. Maule v. Independent School District No. 9Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
  3. Daily Leader v. Cameron, AuditorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1895
  4. Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical CenterWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Oliver v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. LEE v. BUENOSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
  2. Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2013
  3. John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2017
  4. Sanders ex rel. Ray v. GlanzDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2015
  5. MULLENDORE v. MERCY HOSPITAL ARDMORESupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2019

35 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