IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 1.21 OF OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULES
2021 OK 41
| Okla. | 2021Background
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court issued an order amending Rule 1.21 of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, effective July 15, 2021.
- Rule 1.21 governs computation of time to commence appeals (petition in error) from district courts and certain tribunals. The Order includes redlined Exhibit A and the revised full text as Exhibit B.
- The amendment clarifies what does not constitute a judgment, decree, or appealable order (e.g., minute entries, docket entries, informal statements, letters), and presumes the district clerk's file-stamp date as the filing date.
- It preserves a 30-day filing period for petitions in error, adds a specific 3-day mailing presumption rule when the appellant did not prepare the judgment (triggering alternative mailing-date calculation), and reiterates that appeal deadlines may not be extended.
- The Rule updates and clarifies workers’ compensation review language (references to Title 85/85A and the Workers' Compensation Court Commission/Court of Existing Claims) and states that 12 O.S. §§ 696.2 and 696.3 do not apply to workers’ compensation orders/awards.
- The Rule also restates timing/venue rules for contempt appeals and juvenile delinquency appeals (transfer procedure and timeliness on transfer), and preserves special timing for driver’s license and water conservancy appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Computation of time to commence district-court appeal and filing-trigger rules | Amendment needed to clarify what counts as a judgment and the filing-date presumption; protect appellants who did not prepare the order | No substantive opposition recorded; concern that clarity must match statutory scheme | Court adopted clarified text: 30-day petition period measured from clerk file-stamp; specified non-judgment items; mailing-presumption rule preserved. |
| Mailing-trigger for appellants who did not prepare judgment (3-day rule) | Preserve/confirm that if court records do not show mailing within 3 days, appeal period runs from earliest record of mailing | Potentially argued for different tolling mechanics or stricter proof burden | Court retained rule: petition may be filed within 30 days after earliest date court records show mailing; cites Tidemark. |
| Workers’ compensation review procedure and statutory citations | Update rule to reflect Title 85A, Workers' Compensation Court Commission, and application to injuries before/after Feb 1, 2014; confirm §§ 696.2–696.3 inapplicable | Ensure historical claims under Title 85 remain governed by appropriate statutes/rules | Court amended language to reference 85/85A and the Commission/Court; explicitly excluded 12 O.S. §§ 696.2, 696.3 from applying to workers’ compensation orders/awards. |
| Venue, transfer, and timeliness for contempt and juvenile delinquency appeals | Clarify which appellate court handles contempt and juvenile delinquency, and preserve timeliness on transfer | Some may argue transfer could create timing uncertainty | Court reaffirmed venue rules, transfer procedure, and that appeals considered timely on transfer if originally filed within the applicable time limits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tidemark Exploration, Inc. v. Good, 967 P.2d 1194 (Okla. 1998) (addresses mailing-based triggering of appellate time and related proof issues)
- Mowdy v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 524 P.2d 5 (Okla. 1974) (discusses timing for judicial review of driver's license decisions)
- Letteer v. Conservancy District No. 30, 385 P.2d 796 (Okla. 1963) (addresses procedure and bond requirement for water conservancy appeals)