ABC Drilling Co., Inc. v. Hughes Group

deter fact remains to be of material tion Green, (Okl. Perry v. mined.

1970). court here erred The trial Board’s answers to

upon examination of the we

interrogatories contained in the record controversy may exist as a substantial

find new alleged had and on plaintiff

to whether show that the Board will be able to

trial policy supple school adopted plaintiff’s rights un expanded and

mented E, and, supra, 6-101

der O.S.1971 § so, whether Board had

case it had done as a any to it lawful defenses such

available

right plaintiff one of the same rules under

asserts, appropri plaintiff to dismiss under

ately pleadings they in case are amended

amended, etc. event, clearly appears it to us summary judg granting

trial court erred in against plaintiff

ment for defendants giving plaintiff opportu at least

without

nity to show that he was entitled either favor as to de

summary in his liability alleged

fendants’ if the rule

force, seeking or to introduce his evidence such a rule and defendants’ establish

liability pursuant thereto. is reversed trial court’s pro- is remanded for further cause

ceedings herewith. not inconsistent

IRWIN, J., HODGES, V. C.

BARNES, SIMMS,'DOOLIN, HARGRAVE OPALA, JJ., concur. CO., INC., Appellee,

ABC DRILLING GROUP, Appellant.

The HUGHES

No. 52050. of Oklahoma. Court

March

Rehearing April Denied Coldiron, D.

Mark D. Coldiron Brent appellee. Del City, for Smith, Although required Barney W. Miller and Steven C. to do so under the City, appellant. statute, Oklahoma above of State mailed petition and summons to defendant’s HARGRAVE, Justice: subsequently and it was re- Drilling Company, an Oklahoma ABC turned unable to forward. against action corporation, brought this date, plaintiff Prior to the answer Hughes Group, foreign corporation, hav- applied special for and received a commis ing principal place of business in Phoe- Phoenix, deposition sion to take a in Arizo nix, Arizona, alleging money it incurred Order, na. The Application, Notice to Take damages resulting from breach of a con- Depositions and Affidavit of of Service No tract executed in Oklahoma. The contract tice, all “sundry refer to witnesses” and obligated gas A.B.C. to drill oil and wells reflect service notice of was made to the peti-

for the defendant out of state. The service at the same address from alleges obligated tion the defendant was to which process the notice of was returned drilling furnish water and mud under the Although unable to forward. the affidavit agreement. locating After on the first deposition of service of notice to take re drilling April plaintiff site on waited mail, registered flects the record contains May until 1976 for the arrival of those no receipt. deposition return The was tak alleged materials. Plaintiff it was entitled en and is in the before this included record recovery daily standby to of a rate of deposed party, Hughes, The Loren Court. $39,- expenses totaling and actual $2040.00 is the sole stockholder of the defendant attorney 354.86 in addition to fees and action, plaintiff corporation. deposition costs. In a second cause of At the time the $22,500.00 prayed judgment taken, for a of for process papers was which had damages by incurred defendant’s fraudu- actually by never received theretofore been misrepresentation ability lent to were examined contract, carry obligations out its under the corporate agent. service Such in resulting drilling in the loss of use of spection informal and no return was was $25,000.00 rig, additionally sought a and be, made thereof nor could it inasmuch as punitive damages judgment. papers inspection by presented were

The plaintiff Secretary served the of plaintiff’s attorney, party, an interested provisions State of Oklahoma under the of single and was not the summons issued 1.204a, provides: O.S.1971, required by 12 the court clerk as “In all cases where a cause of action O.S.Supp.1973 or 12 O.S. § any person has accrued or shall accrue to Supp.1972 process of must Service foreign corporation doing reason of a upon provisions stand of 18 O.S.1971 having business in this state or done busi- informal, notice is not 1.204a. The actual foreign corpo- ness in this state or while a jurisdic sufficient as a substitute for the doing ration was business within this requirement tional of service of foreign corporation state and such has no Pizzutti, upon the Wuchter v. defendant. registered agent upon in this state whom 259, 72 48 S.Ct. L.Ed. process may service of summons or other (1928). had, against be an action be filed journal entry judg- a default The issued foreign corporation any county such in in February, day ment on the 9th of the state and service or other of summons journal entry the court swore That reflects process may of court, testimony open witnesses and took shall and be sufficient subject finding personal therefrom give jurisdiction person to jurisdiction, stating, specifically matter having court in this state of “plaintiff duly was served with summons subject sitting whether in the matter thirty prior to this date.” days more than county where the of State at- journal entry served or in the The finds the contract elsewhere state.” on it or poration without service plaintiff’s petition “initia- tached it, legal in the negotiated Oklaho- other sufficient notice to State ted and suit, damages is void judgment appearance assesses in the ma.” absence of an on the first cause against jurisdiction. the defendant want Southwestern Walser, $39,354.86, post- prejudgment Surety action Ins. Co. v. $27.00,

judgment (1920). interest costs vacate is P. 335 Here motion to $6,823.26. attorney’s jurisdictional fee of solely directed defects damages on the second cause at assesses thus judgment and the defendant $22,500.00 judg- interest from judgment relating sum of defects waived damages ment, reserving issue. punitive person over the Sanders, fendant. La Bellman Gleason & days after Three months and seventeen Inc., (Okl.1966). filed his judgment, the defendant motion which he vacate the default Mills v. In the Flour case of Consolidated objection jurisdiction preserved (1927) his to over Muegge, by person alleging of objection the the defendant is now substantially the same as Therein only jurisdictional defects. offered raised to 18 O.S.1971 1.204a was § not alleges possess court did fendant the provided: against § C.O.S. jurisdiction by the subject matter virtue of doing busi- “Any foreign corporation, upon not fact that the contract sued was Oklahoma, having of ness in the State executed, “initiated, negotiated, performed appoint agent upon failed either to an the performed of or intended State proc- whom of summons or other service objected Secondly, defendant Oklahoma.” had, file in the may ess be or failed to service, alleging upon service made duly Secretary office a of State Secretary of did not afford actual State copy of its article of incor- authenticated knowledge litigation. of poration [charter], having or character or Thirdly, alleges the motion to vacate required pay failed the license fee as judgment against the taking of a default by law, foreign then in the event of said corporation without service of corporation with having comply failed to process upon it is a violation and denial of any provisions of the law above by process guaranteed of as Article due law to, any person or referred now hereafter 2, 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution and the § against any having any cause of action to the Federal Fourteenth Amendment foreign against corporation file suit Constitution, when, instance, as in this corporation any county said foreign knowledge of plaintiff had actual the loca- any service of state and summons corporate ser- tion of office whose shall process upon Secretary of State agent’s address were mat- vice name and a give jurisdiction of the be sufficient to public of record. ter person having court of any this state subject-matter.” jurisdiction of overruling order trial court’s finding similarly motion to a that Title 18 1.204a contains vacate recites provision upon of corpo process the Court had over the for service by proc requirement without a Secretary rate defendant virtue of service of of State that to the de- Secretary finding ess on the that such service forwarded provide both proper foreign as the cor fendant. Insofar as statutes service inasmuch foreign agent corporation had no for service on a poration service this state. states, having agent appointed then “. The order a service serving Secretary lacks said state of State Court entertain forwarding provision motion for reasons as set forth.” A void contain no however, itself, judgment, corporation the statutes any be vacated at party person operatively time on motion are identical. Prior to however, thereby. provi- a second affected 12 O.S.1971 1038. A Title 18 contained against sion in personal specifying rendered a cor- process shall forward the service of State never been domesticated. Contrasting- upon corporate him to the ly, served defend- in Washington, supra, the corporation provision repealed by This was ant. Ch. by serving served the state official was at therefore, Okla.Sess.Law 1972 one time domesticated but had withdrawn stands, law of this state now there from the state at the time service was statutorily imperative procedure exists no made. In Washington, supra, the Federal assuring process that notice of is trans- Supreme upheld Court the constructive ser- mitted to the defendant in the manner most vice upon had therein likely under the circumstances to achieve State, noting the appellant fact that pending litigation. actual notice of the had previously qualified to do business in Precisely posture up the law complied this registra- State and with the held this state’s Court in Con distinguished tion statute that case from Muegge, supra. solidated Flour Mills v. Muegge, Consolidated Flour Mills v. supra. justify The rationale utilized to this method distinguishing factor is that once the of service of was that where state complied with the domesti- designates agent law upon whom service provisions statutes, cation of the state it has served, may be the corporation, corpo- consented to be bound the state’s assents impliedly to the statute and at least statutes, ration cog- therefore deemed to be authority clothes that officer with to re nizant of the generally state’s statutes ceive corpo service in its behalf the alternative to appointment of a service appoint ration’s failure to a resident service particular. within the state in Once agent. upholding This decision the consti having protection invoked the of the laws tutionality of the statute was overturned in Oklahoma, potential the defendant has a opinion, memorandum Consolidated Flour acquiesced application of these stat- 559, 17, Muegge, Mills v. 278 49 U.S. S.Ct. affairs, utes to his business and and can be (1928),stating: 73 L.Ed. 505 “Reversed on particular held to have chosen the service authority (276 the of Wuchter v. Pizzutti”. applicable alternative in his situation. It is 13, 259, (1928)). U.S. 48 72 L.Ed. 446 S.Ct. provided by therefore seen that the notice Wuchter, however, deals with a state of reasonably 1.204a is provide calculated to involving facts service of on a non notice of the action to a domesti- by serving Secretary resident motorist the corporation cated in the best manner availa- of State and does not involve service on a ble under the circumstances that if foreign corporation. Adding to the scenario actually notice does not reach the defend- is the Washington case of ex rel. Bond & G ant, party bearing responsibili- he is the the Court, 361, Superior & T v. 289 U.S. 53 S.Ct. ty for that failure. 624, (1933). 77 L.Ed. 1256 That ease held reaches for Where the notice a Secretary service the of State was eign corporation which has not been domes corporation sufficient in a case in which the ticated, perceive we a material and decisive state, had domesticated within the subse invalidity distinction dictates which quently had withdrawn and then became a the Oklahoma statute at the same time in the action virtue of the explains validity the constitutional service on the state official in an instance in Washington Muegge, statute in the face of provision which there was no statutory supra. Washington provides statute forwarding process. Considering that Con foreign corpora that after withdrawal of a Muegge, solidated Flour Mills v. 127 Okl. state, an 295, tion from the it must maintain (1927), reversed in 278 U.S. 559, 17, agent therein until the statute of limita 505, compar 49 73 L.Ed. S.Ct. upon any cause of action ing Bond, tions has run Washington facts with ex rel. supra, during presence created its in the state. we note that the material distinction Failing compliance, between be had the two is the fact that in Consoli corporation doing dated the on the The Federal business in of State. Washington rel. foreign corporation Oklahoma was a which Court stated in ex 768 on allows blind service

Bond, at 364 and 1971 1.204a supra, pages 289 U.S. personal jur- of State to establish page 626: S.Ct. of a state’s individual citizen which arises from sonal methods case). There is a basic distinction between to Wuchter S.Ct. ver Fire Ins. Co. v. U.S. did not consent constitutional unsound.” fication of a imposed.” (citations cordance with cast entry into the state constitutes an assent We fying as a Consolidated Oklahoma statute was held violative basic tenets “It has foreign corporation “We 72 L.Ed. 446 its ^[*] think, power part are told . 71 repeatedly ^[*] to all L.Ed. S.Ct. however, foreign corporation appellant Pizzutti, Flour Mills v. foreign condition exclude of due over a a state to the (a ^[*] 372 without notice statutes Carr, non-resident reasonable been 73 L.Ed. 505 that omitted). (1926). into state. corporation corporation or condition ^[*] arbitrary that it said that that by permitting exercise Muegge, The service ^[*] position conditions might motorist and un- 48 S.Ct. citation of suit. and an (1928), Hano quali- quali- entry ^[*] per ac- its 47 is jurisdiction referable to therefor. This tice stances to process, because with the state’s laws and its failure to do Foreign S.Ct. sented quirement that pendency of Hanover Bank isdiction over arose, so be heard to state, the state ration could mesticated ute, point. The text reasonably it is violative of the due is done here. This by doing Corporations, official corporation asserts a apprise at the time the cause say appellee submits itself to personal jurisdiction. have L.Ed. 865 application & Trust statement calculated that it did foreign business in the state the action. Mullane so is by doing corporation interested appointed state, state statute must cited refers to estops asserts that the (1950). Co., corporation not of the service stat- will over citing is correct but not not under all circum- it principle business subject not thereafter parties of the for service of submit has not the business U.S. 36 Am.Jur. process re- compliance agent afford no- v. Central authority denying matter corpo action con- fact do- reject necessary jurisdiction appellee’s to non We the contention obtain over a doing foreign corporation, by and cor busi resident individual a non-resident having state, (as the poration complied judgment with the ness within the roll never domesticate, registration incorpo establishes) failing to state’s statutes must and can compliance provision giving estopped deny rate a for the to with the reasonable which would litigation. defendant notice of initiation of domestication statutes estab agent potential The the as his fact that a lish of State law. 12 qualified to in the state and service of as a matter of do business Supp. with or and complied registra the domestication O.S.1977 187 12 O.S.1971 collectively corporation’s ap seq. tion statute the 1701.01et allow this state establishes (here pointment state the over the action to the official exercise State) e., process, in absence i. in the outer reaches of due appointment agent. of another resident instances where minimal contacts with the designat present. so forum are Motors corporation Where the has not state Glidewell Pate, agent by domesticating (Okl.1978); ed a service and v. Carmack 1290 Co., selecting v. Chemical Bank York Trust state official default New alternative, (Okl.1975); Battery appointing an service on the P.2d 897 Marathon Co. (Okl.1966). Kilpatrick, This Secretary of is not service of the 418 P.2d 900 corporation’s doing and statute not business agent fails Court has held require provision for service of within state of a sufficient character reasonable this 1701.- corporation’s agent. quantity satisfy Insofar as 18 O.S. and 03(1), requiring only “transacting any busi- series of constituting doing acts busi- state;” personal ness in this as a basis of required ness to invoke the domestication require the cor- jurisdiction is sufficient to Therefore, statutes of this state. the con- Indeed, to domesticate. poration tention that estopped pro- he should be or phrase “doing “transacting any business” or denying compliance hibited from with the jurisdiction requires business” as a basis for domestication laws and thus unable to only minimal contacts with the forum state present jurisdictional error of failure to be satisfied an isolated transac- serve on corporation an Plating Clay tion. Vemco v. Denver Fire does not obtain. presented The defendant Co., (Okl.1972); 496 P.2d 117 Vinita Broad- jurisdictional judgment defect in the casting Colby, F.Supp. Co. v. court, the trial judg- and demonstrated that (N.D.Okl.1971). ment to be void on its face for lack of person. over Finding his corporate presence statutory provision of 18 1.204a O.S.1971 § necessary state to establish the constitutionally impermissible under doing business within the state sufficient Bank, tenets of Mullane v. Central Hanover required it is to domesticate is not supra, inasmuch as it allows measured princi minimum contact rendered process upon without service of ple. concept doing business within foreign corporation undomesticated and is purposes the state for of domestication has reasonably apprise been calculated to Mortgage discussed in Bond Co. suit, Stephens, 831, 840, impending fendant of the judg- 181 Okl. (1937). ruling ment is void. The trial The fact of a distinction court’s between reversed, applications phrase the two motion to vacate is the default “doing purposes vacated, business is licensing and the cause is re- do mestication” was manded. recalled and the Court

reaffirmed the definition utilized in Deni AND REVERSED REMANDED. Phipps, (1922), son v. 87 Okl. 211 P. 83 which was in turn derived from the case LAVENDER, J., IRWIN, J., C. V. C. Allen, Fuller v. WILLIAMS, HODGES, and DOO- SIMMS (1915): JJ., LIN, concur. is, question presented “The now What by transacting meant business? The OPALA, J., part concurs in and dissents best definition we can think of for this part.

phrase doing is the performing a series ALA, Justice, concurring part OP time, attention, occupy of acts which dissenting part: and labor of men purpose for the of liveli- hood, profit pleasure. It is well settled At issue is the correctness of trial upon authority doing single of a judgment court’s refusal to vacate a default pertaining particular act to a business or judgment The proceedings.1 un- § will carry- transaction not be considered challenge against corpo- der was an Arizona on, ing transacting, doing or business. ration —unlicensed in this state. Its suabili- The implies mere term itself more than ty liability sought to be Oklahoma for one'transaction. imposed predicated single was on a transac- “ doing single ‘The of a act of business constitutionally alleged tion to have the in another state does not constitute requisite with the “minimum contacts” doing meaning of business within the falling opinion state. Our condemns as ’ ” foreign corporation laws . short of the mandate fundamental law’s By presented; process pursuant the record both our statute de foreign fendant is not shown to have haled entered into a to which the defendant was 1. 12 O.S.1971 § 2. 18 O.S.1971 1.204a. given by the mov- days in this least five must be fully I concur While

into court. norm, legal I applicable appraisal of ant. judgment. As I join cannot in the court’s legal impediment at this There exists no entity record, the out-of-state view the pro nunc a correction of the record time to concededly to it was though notice suit— remand, the defend- by showing, on tunc nonetheless deficient—was constitutionally A de- voluntary appearance.5 prior ant’s jurisdiction. court’s to the district amenable served with who has never been fendant entered a volun- it had This is so because voluntary appearance, may, by summons presi- when its in the case tary appearance jurisdiction. himself to the court’s submit present, both were legal dent and counsel would cure the fatal A recital to that effect date, taking of merits before answer challenge.6 jurisdictional defect here under Phoenix, Arizona and the depositions in there, himself, then and president allowed “voluntary concept appear- When the objection deposed without legal process ser- a ance” as substitute counsel in attendance. legal on our making its debut vice was to vacate was reached When the-motion scene, judicial expressions early some prior disposition below the defendant’s constitute an require seemed to that “to appearance in the case was not voluntary formal en- appearance, there must be some proper recital in the shown “of record” a motion, this must be of try, plea, apparent journal entry nor was it otherwise record, only by the rec- and can be tried judgment roll. from the face of carry- This notion was no doubt ord.”7 therefore void on the face of judgment was approach the earlier common-law over from subject to attack —direct or the roll and “appearance” not as mere regarded statutorily unlimited collateral—within a record”, “of presence in court but as an act showing span.3 time Aside from want of a as, “safe giving bail arrest or voluntary respect to the defendant’s with early appearance.8 The pledges” for one’s date, prior to answer appearance in the case firmly superseded by modern is now view infirmity crept into the procedural another regard procedure. These notions notions of judgment sought procuring knowledge as more than appearance no seeking the default to be vacated. When coupled with acts pending proceedings judgment challenge plaintiff under juris- which intention to submit to the for the comply failed to with Rule Rules writing inferred.9 A diction provides That rule District Court.4 longer no “spread upon the record” is judgment may for default before motion appearance.10 required abracadabra previously against be heard one who case, appearance applies to voluntary notice of at doctrine of appearance made an Hull, [1860]; 7. Scott v. 14 Ind. 136 State ex rel. 3. When the roll fails disclose Belden, by process brought 211 N.W. into court 193 Wis. Cronkhite him, Am.Jur.2d, constitutionally [1927]; Ap due that is 57 A.L.R. 1218 488; pearance, p. void rendered in the case is face anno. 68 A.L.R. Magnolia proper. Petroleum record Co. Okl., Young, It [1953]. subject “at to both direct or collateral attack Pleadings; Reppy, 8. Koffler and Common Law 1038; anytime”. Union 12 O.S.1971 Farmers’ Millar, the Trial Civil Procedure of Court Woodward, Okl., oop. Royalty C Co. v. Perspective 74 Historical [1952]. 1384 [1973]. appear telephone constitute an 9. A call 2, App. O.S.Supp.1973, 4. 12 Ch. 491, Sherman, 246 N.W.2d 494 ance. Perdue v. [N.D.1976]. pro 5. of the record Nunc tunc amendment speak it the truth. be made at time to make Nash, 525, 296, 51 P.2d 297 10. Rand v. 174 Okl. Stevens, Dyers Expert v. Stevens & Cleaners Co., [1935]; Products Matthies v. Union Okl., 998, 267 P.2d 1000 [1954]. 232, 36 P.2d 89 [1934]. Kan. Casker, 162; May 6. 12 O.S.1971 188 Okl. 448, 287, 290 [1940]. persons deposition as well hearing both on the merits of the con- “ troversy as to ‘the defendant is a nonresident appearance constitutes an in the [who] ”11 particular place.’ in a only depending and servable case on the circumstanc- which— may be characterized either as volun- es— corporate The out-of-state tary involuntary. This much of Bentz unquestionably knowledge this case of —and not an iota more—has survived intact Oklahoma suit in advance of subsequent all statutory Oklahoma amend- depositions the time were to be taken in ments to the Kansas Code of Civil Proce- president’s Phoenix. Its act appearance binding precedent.15 dure and is still pursuant previous with counsel notice for proceeding allowing that and of himself to The effect of defendant’s voluntary ap- deposed be on the merits of the pearance action with- by cannot be avoided its “reserva- any objection12 out by objections counsel immediate tion” of stipulation in the must, doubt, attendance without a preceded be the taking deposition.16 which, deemed a voluntary appearance objections un- The so reserved were confined to 162, der 12 O.S.1971 is govern to be viewed as those which admissibility “equivalent to service” of constitutionally testimony given. stipulation as a acceptable process. presence court One’s utterly whole is inconsistent with the notion participation deposition-taking may at challenge of a reserved to the constitute appearance “to the merits” of the Oklahoma court. This is so because it controversy.13 This objections much was settled reserves all “until the time of by Court of Kansas in Bentz v. trial”. Neither is the defendant aided Eubanks14 adoption before our of the Code the Oklahoma “Rules of Civil Procedure” to n of Civil Procedure from that state. In which stipula- reference was made in the Bentz presence defendant’s provides tion. Our law held in 12 an involuntary appearance because it pending challenge took that a validity place after service of summons. Here party’s service is not waived appear- at, in, attendance participation deposition and active taking. ance There was no deposition-taking any proc- pending occurred before challenge on file in this case when ess was served the corporate entity. defendant’s president gave attended and Moreover, There could hence no coercive testimony. O.S.Supp.1979 element in 12 present in president’s provides attendance. Al- 390.1 the the party statute though is, shown, distinguishable Bentz “obliged” deposition hearing to attend a facts, holding firmly supports legally one “who has been served with sum- view that a defendant’s attendance at a mons appearance or entered an Young, Co., Ry. 11. Lieuallen v. 115 Okl. 241 P. 13. Froelich v. Northern Pac. 39 N.D. 167 N.W. 366 [1925]. [1918]. Kan. 4 P. 269 [1884]. 14. “stipulation” deposi- contained in the transcript preserve tion’s did not defendant’s which, adopted 15. A statute from another state challenge objection to the Oklahoma court’s law, when carried into our had received a con jurisdiction. pertinent part stipulation state, highest struction court of that is v. provides: presumed adopted as so construed. Conwill Eldridge, [1918]; Byrd deposition “. . . 71 Okl. P. 79 . taken [is] [1924]; pursuant In re to the Rules of Civil Procedure and Estate, Okl., objections except Fletcher’s Kansas decisions are interpretation 308 P.2d 304 ques- [1957]. that all as to form of well-nigh conclusive on tions or answers are reserved until the time early adopted statutes required by of trial. All other formalities law Chesmore, Okl., Chesmore v. that state. taking returning depositions for the 518 [1971]. exception depo- are waived with the sign deposition.” nent read and said stipulation, supra 16. See text note [emphasis added] clear that is therefore case.”17 It rules of by our compelled

fendant HAMPTON, now Linda Jean appearance at its to make procedure civil Watts, Plaintiff, not choose so if it did deposition-taking v. to do. HAMPTON, Appellant, R. Charles m contours of the fir summary, legal norm which Oklahoma

applicable statutes and of our emerge a review law are line of decisional uninterrupted Dorothy George T. Carter and attendance pre-service that a defendant’s Carter, Appellees. ad deposition-taking participation 51393. No. controversy,' to the merits dressed a filed and unprotected when of Oklahoma. Supreme Court appro challenge some jurisdictional 1, April stipulation entered in the priate reservation hearing, consti deposition before the into appearance equivalent voluntary

tutes court constitutionally-acceptable meaning of 12 O.S.1971 within the 162.18 vacate, when con-

Defendant’s motion appear- voluntary light in the

sidered the face of shown earlier on

ance [not single but a roll], presented “irregularity

ground for vacation—that While the de- obtaining judgment.”19 respect was in this one

fendant’s motion within the timely made

meritorious and by 12 O.S.1971

three-year provided limit to a release from it did not entitle it only vacation of the to a

the action but

challenged judgment. default out-of- therefore hold that

I would [a] in court as a corporate defendant is

state appearance, prior voluntary

result of its [b] refusing vacate the

the order grounds “irreg- reversed on

should be

ularity” procurement, in its

meaning subdiv. O.S.1971 § of Rule 10 and cause

due to a violation [c] proceed- further be remanded for

should

ings. proceedings participation Although deposition appearance in court ence and may of de- equiva- voluntary appearance president constitute before the enact- fendant’s ment of 12 occurred Lee, 390.1, Hansberry process. applica- O.S.Supp.1979 to service of lent statute, paraphrased L.Ed. 22 [1940]. 61 S.Ct. ble terms of that text, merely declaratory pre-existing were comply 19.Failure with Rule govern in this case. case law and hence irregularity” within 12 O.S.1971 “an deemed Grimes, 3; infirmity due-process Le Roi Co. subdiv. § Okl. is no federal 18. There voluntary recognition pres- 144 P.2d 973 [1944]. that one’s state-law

Case Details

Case Name: ABC Drilling Co., Inc. v. Hughes Group

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Mar 18, 1980

Citation: 609 P.2d 763

Docket Number: 52050

Court Abbreviation: Okla.