Haynes v. Tulsa Public Schools Transit
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
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
- Reynolds v. PorterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
- Maule v. Independent School District No. 9Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- Great Plains Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. DabneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Barrett v. Board of Com'rs of Tulsa CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
- Ingram v. Oneok, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.