Legal Opinion

Pierson v. Canupp

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 6, 1988No. 63027PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPALA, Justice.

Two questions are presented for our decision: [1] Is the father’s quest for corrective relief from the trial court’s “certified interlocutory order” dismissible for his failure to establish an aggrieved-party status and because the trial judge’s certification is ineffective to invest this court with reviewing cognizance? and [2] Did the mother bring a timely appeal from the trial court’s order that refused to assume jurisdiction in both the custody and the adoption contests? We answer the first question in the affirmative and dismiss the father’s appeal; as for the second…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Flick v. CrouchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
  2. Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
  3. Timmons v. Royal Globe Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
  4. Underside v. LathropSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
  5. Cleary Petroleum Corp. v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Schepp v. HessSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  2. SMITH v. CITY OF STILLWATERSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2014
  3. A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. the Employers' Workers' Compensation Ass'nSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
  4. McMillian v. HolcombSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
  5. Ward Petroleum Corp. v. StewartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003

31 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