Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Sisk v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided July 8, 2003No. 94,288Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
BOUDREATU, J.,
with whom SUMMERS, J., joins: concurring in part; dissenting in part.
1 1 I agree with the portion of the majority opinion that allows the judgment below to stand. I dissent to the portion of the opinion which concludes that by dismissing Courville from the suit for the second time, plaintiff lost the capacity to refile his claim against Courville. The majority opinion is flawed in that it fails to treat 12 0.8. § 100 as a true statute of limitations.
T2 A statute of limitations prescribes a time period within which an action must be brought upon a claim. It is remedial rather…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Reynolds v. PorterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
- Flick v. CrouchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
- Neer v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
- Cruse v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- Mid-Continent Pipeline Co. v. CrauthersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1954
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.