Legal Opinion · Dissent

Matter of Estate of Nation

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided June 30, 1992No. 78918Published

1Dissent

OPALA, Chief Justice,

with whom

HODGES, Vice Chief Justice, joins, dissenting.

The court dismisses for untimeliness an appeal from a mid-probate order that denies appellants’ claim — as unintentionally omitted children — to a statutory share of decedent’s estate.1 Today’s opinion reasons that the order in contest is interlocutory2 and hence must be appealed,3 if at *444all, within thirty days of its rendition4 rather than thirty days after its filing5 I must recede from the court’s pronouncement. I would review the nisi prius order at once because it is final as the disposition of a “collateral"…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Flanagan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

39 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