Legal Opinion · Dissent

Haynes v. Tulsa Public Schools Transit

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided July 12, 1994No. 82938Published

1DissentOp Ala, Justice

Today the court holds that the cost deposit in a workers’ compensation review proceeding may be accepted as timely even though it was made after the lapse of the twenty-day period for filing a petition for review. The opinion’s rationale rests on the absence of an express command in Rule 1.101(a)1 that costs be remitted to the clerk simultaneously with the delivery of a petition for review (or at least within the maximum time for lodging the review proceeding). The court’s pronouncement is contrary to the statutory cost-deposit regime (20 O.S.Supp.1993 § 15)2 as well as to the cost…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. PorterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
  2. Maule v. Independent School District No. 9Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
  3. Great Plains Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. DabneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
  4. Barrett v. Board of Com'rs of Tulsa CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
  5. Ingram v. Oneok, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989

8 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