Legal Opinion
TAL Technologies, Inc. v. L.D. Rhodes Oil Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided May 16, 2000No. 91,337PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARGRAVE, V.C.J.
T1 The dispositive issue before us is whether a motion for sanctions was untimely where the appellees failed to comply with the "safe harbor" provision of title 12 0.8. Supp. 1994 §$ 2011(C)(1)(a). We hold that it was. The motion for sanctions was not served upon the plaintiff twenty-one (21) days prior to filing the motion for sanctions with the trial court. The motion for sanctions was filed with the trial court after the plaintiff voluntarily had withdrawn the offending pleading. There is no basis under 12 0.8. Supp.1994 § 2011(C)(1)(a) for the imposition of sanctions if…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Stephen Michael Ridder v. City of Springfield, Clark CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- State Ex Rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979
- Aerotech, Inc. v. Estes IndustriesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
- Barber v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
- Barnett v. SimmonsCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2012
- Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. HillCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2000
- PAYCOM PAYROLL v. BOODOOSINGHCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2021
- Dean Bailey Olds, Inc. v. Richard Preston Motor Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.