Legal Opinion

Brown v. Burkett

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 9, 1988No. 67071PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPALA, Justice.

This cause is reached for consideration of our sua sponte inquiry into the court’s jurisdiction of this proceeding for review. The sole question for decision is whether a person in the petitioner’s financial and legal status has a state constitutional claim, under Art. II, § 6, Okl. Const., 1 to an exemption from the mandatory bond provision in 85 O.S.Supp.1986 § 3.6(B). 2 We answer in the affirmative.

Jim Brown [petitioner] is required by the terms of § 3.6(B) to give a supersedeas bond in order to secure this court’s review of liability imposed upon him by a Workers’…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Moses v. HoebelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
  2. Pryse Monument Co. v. District Court of Kay CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979
  3. In Re LeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  4. Texas Oklahoma Express v. SorensonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
  5. Matter of RichSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Braun v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1997
  2. Brown v. BurkettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
  3. Carter v. CarterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  4. IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULES OF OK. SUP. CT. (WORKERS' COMPENSATION CT.)Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2023
  5. IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULES OF OK. SUP. CT. (WORKERS' COMPENSATION CT.)Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2023

10 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