Davis v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
2010 OK 78
| Okla. | 2010Background
- March 16, 2010: journal entry of judgment granted employers' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- March 30, 2010: Davis filed a timely extension request within ten working days after judgment.
- June 18, 2010: trial court denied the motion to reconsider; order entered.
- Davis filed an appeal within 30 days of the order, but employers moved to dismiss as untimely.
- Statutory framework requires petition in error within 30 days; post-judgment motions do not extend appeal deadlines absent specific extensions.
- Rule 1.22(e) provides post-trial motions filed after ten days do not delay the appeal period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal was timely filed | Davis timely appealed under extensions. | Appeal filed outside 30 days; untimely. | Appeal dismissed for untimeliness. |
| Do motions to reconsider extend the appeal period | Extensions may extend time when timely filed. | Extensions do not affect deadline; jurisdictional rule controls. | No extension permitted; jurisdictional deadline governs. |
| Which provision governs timing (specific vs general) | Specific statute governs extensions. | General discretion cannot override specific deadline. | Specific statute governs; discretionary extensions not to defeat deadline. |
| Effect of Rule 1.22(e) on post-trial motions | Post-trial motions may delay appeal. | Rule 1.22(e) bars delaying effect of late motions. | Post-trial motions filed after ten days do not delay appeal period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Security Finance Corp. of Oklahoma, Inc., 152 P.3d 165 (OK 2006) (timeliness for appeals is jurisdictional; extensions do not alter deadline)
- Whitehead v. Tulsa Public Schools, 968 P.2d 1211 (OK 1998) (jurisdictional timing requirements for appeals)
- Stites v. DUIT Constr. Co., 903 P.2d 293 (OK 1995) (timeliness and appeal procedures)
- Woods v. Woods, 830 P.2d 1372 (OK 1992) (timeliness of appeals and related procedures)
- Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp., 230 P.3d 853 (OK 2010) (specific statute governs when conflict with general provision)