Legal Opinion
Conterez v. O'DONNELL
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided September 18, 2002No. 95,759PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtOpala, J.
¶ 1 The sole dispositive issue tendered on certiorari is whether the Court of Civil Appeals [COCA] erred in dismissing sua sponte the plaintiffs appeal. We answer in the negative. Although certiorari review results in the same disposition as that reached by COCA, today’s dismissal is rested on different grounds.
I
THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION
¶ 2 The plaintiff, Jesse G. Conterez [Con-terez or plaintiff], brought a medical malpractice action against two defendants. During the course of discovery, Conterez’s counsel deposed a pathologist (not a party in the case) who had examined the plaintiff. Terry…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Edmund A. Rachel, AKA Peter Rachel, D/B/A Wildlife Interiors, Plaintiff v. Banana Republic, Inc., Fisher Development, Inc., and the Gap, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Payne v. DewittSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
- Stites v. DUIT Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- Woody v. State Ex Rel. Department of CorrectionsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 52 v. HOFMEISTERSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2020
- Berryhill v. RhodesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2014
- CREST INFINITI, II, LP v. SwintonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- State v. One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Seven DollarsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
- IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF BERRYSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2014
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.