Legal Opinion
Hunter v. Echols
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 5, 1991No. 72358PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KAUGER, Justice.
The issue of first impression presented is whether an amended petition, filed without leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party after a responsive pleading has been served, is a valid pleading. We find that, once a responsive pleading has been served, failure to obtain leave of court or written consent by the adverse party to file an amended petition renders the amendment totally ineffective. The amendment is deemed not to have been filed.
FACTS
On July 24, 1985, the appellant, Jerry Hunter (Hunter), filed a petition alleging that the appellee, M. Eileen Echols…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Clark v. GansonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- Wiley Electric, Inc. v. BrantleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
- Rambur v. Diehl Lumber CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1964
- Kelly v. AbbottSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Padzensky v. KinzenbawSupreme Court of Iowa · 1984
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Weldon v. DunnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1998
- FIRST PRYORITY BANK v. MOONCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2013
- Durant Civic Foundation, Inc. v. Grand Lodge of Oklahoma of the Independent Order of Odd FellowsCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2008
- FIRST PRYORITY BANK v. MOONCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2013
- Williams v. WilliamsCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.