*1 permits non-uni- law which special local or fines, remittance regulation
form Legislature forfeitures.
penalties, for remit- procedure
may formulate not by a statute other than
tance of forfeitures general application.15 Exonera- has
which liability on bail bond based
tion from unlicensed, vio- one licensed
whether Const., art. 46. There-
lates the Okla. §
fore, to the intent give effect procedures statutory out-
legislature, exonerating licensed bondsmen
lined for unlicensed liability must
bondsmen. GRANTED; OPINION
CERTIORARI APPEALS VACAT- THE OF
OF COURT
ED; THE TRIAL COURT OF JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED.
HARGRAVE, C.J., and SUMMERS, JJ.,
ALMA WILSON
concur.
LAVENDER, J., concurs in result. J.,
OPALA, V.C.J., and
dissent. CARR,
Byrin Appellant, BRASWELL, Appellee. T.
Michael of Oklahoma.
Supreme Court Enid, pro se.
Byrin supra. Porter, note Reynolds See *2 Ross, Larry Ottaway, D. pear. day, G. David Okla- That the court made the follow- City, ing ruling: appellee. homa hearing
“This matter came on for September pursuant to the de- PER CURIAM: fendant’s motion for presents procedural question. The case appear did not and the de- following Our resolution is based on the represented by fendant was G. David facts the record. Ross. 1980, appellant engaged appellee, In an hearing presentations After attorney, represent to him in a civil argument counsel, of defendant’s against Oklahoma, city action of Enid discovery briefs and Appellee subsequently al. filed suit on record, et materials of the Court finds that appellant behalf of in Federal District the defendant’s motion should be sus- adversely Court. The action was decided tained. appellant,
to the federal court ruled ORDERED, IT IS SO this 12th of claim was barred limita- September, 1986.” tions. The of the Federal Dis- Appellant subsequently Carr filed a.motion trict Court was affirmed the United September to vacate the order of 12. This Appeals States Court of for the Tenth Cir- motion was denied October 24. The record Appellee represented appel- cuit. appellant shows that present was at later, appeal. lant in that Three months hearing arguments offered in sup- appellant attorney Carr had another write port of hearing his motion. After the ar- a letter to in which Carr guments sides, of both the trial court then the outcome of his action was due to attor- specific finding made a that Carr had been ney malpractice and demanded a settlement duly notified of the scheduled date of the $63,709.00. in the amount Appellee re- hearing on the summary judg- motion for ensuing that demand. fused ment good and that he failed to show cause months, appellant complaint filed a with time, for his absence. At that the Court’s against Bar ap- Oklahoma Association 12th was memorialized pellee attorney and later contacted another Entry as a Journal Carr investigate taken, any, by the actions if then initiated his to this Court. against Association Braswell. Appellee first Braswell filed a motion to reported Dissatisfied with the results as dismiss grounds that it State, rel., in: ex Oklahoma Bar Associa was The motion was denied. Braswell, Okl., (1987), tion v. assigned The case was then to the Court of appellee filed the instant action in Appeals, disposition. Div. attorney malpractice in the District Court The Court of determined County. Appellee’s response of Oklahoma that the trial court was in denying correct appellant’s petition alleged limitations as the motion to vacate and affirmed the trial a defense and request, by concluded with a ruling. Ap- the Court of way money of counter owed peals pro- remanded the cause for further professional origi services rendered ceedings reasoning based on its nal action in Appellee Federal Court. then ruling trial court’s was correct be- summary judgment pray filed a motion for cause there was no final in exist- ing judgment Ap be rendered his favor. vacate, ence to simply interlocutory but se, pellant pro responded ap- now sustaining Appellee’s peti- a motion. pellee’s general motion with a denial. granted. tion for cetiorari reject was We hearing reasoning Appeals summary judgment was legal scheduled. The entering effect of an order which however, appellant, appear failed to summary judgment, sustains a motion for hearing rescheduled. The record vacate the finding no appellant again ap- shows that failed discretion in the trial court’s order tal, Inc., v. Board Tax-Roll Corrections summary judgment, affirm County, Oklahoma ruling in all that court’s jurisdiction Appellate Sep- over the
I. tember 12 order was lost when petition failed file a in error to that appreciable difference in the We see no thirty days of rendition. within specif states legal when a trial court result *3 Caldwell, Okl., re 692 Estate of P.2d 1380 ically summary judgment is entered in that However, (1984). appeal to review the movant, a favor of a versus its that decision correctness of the court’s summary be judgment motion sus timely. Yery v. motion to vacate was are final orders in the true tained. Both (1981). Yery, Okl., 357, 629 P.2d 363 Reso- they dispo final in this case are sense: for appeal consequently re- lution of this is rights parties, based on sitions of the review the trial stricted to a court’s merits, preclude and the unsuccessful the motion decision on in proceeding from further trial. The we on such is standard Lewis, Okl., P.2d 529 Emerson 274 the order motion vacate will (1954). such, granting an order a mo As affirmed if there is no discre- be appealable. summary judgment is tion Kennett-Murray tion trial court. by the especially is finality of such an order Co., Kennett-Murray Division & here, when, is memo as that order evident Bank, Okl., Corp. v. Pawnee National 656 Entry of rialized a Journal as (1982); Burroughs v. Bob Martin P.2d 267 Mayhue Mayhue, Okl., Corporation, (1975). trial supports The record court’s emphasized that It is to be here grant appellant’s mo decision summary judges sustain a motion for trial sustaining appel- its order tion to vacate they render formal judgment, should also lee’s motion party. judgment prevailing in favor of the appellant’s complaint, his answer to Lawyers prepare who the written First, essentially things.- two did recite both entry of judgment should alleged run that limitiations had the motions and formal claim if one had existed. appellant’s judgment is rendered in favor and exhibits attached the vari Affidavits summary in favor the motion for whose pleadings showed that ous judgment The minute entered is sustained. alleged his claim no later aware reflect, both the in the should then case 18, 1983, his day letter de May than the fact that sustention of the motion and malpractice settlement was manding favor of judgment was rendered in Second, appellee alleged, way of sent.1 accordingly. or defendant counterclaim, that there were funds still appellee’s represen a result of owed him as II. in appellant in his suit Federal tation of the trial An from the judgment on and District Court asked granted in alleged debt be substantial That order affected appel- an examination of favor. obtaining a prevented togeth him from summary judgment lee’s motion favor; attached, Braly, Jinks v. 202 in his fail er with exhibits affidavit fee, (1950); do 581, unpaid Okl. 216 P.2d the time nor to mention any supporting that decision to commence an we find verified material began pro unliquidated this run the the order was any mention thereof communicated nor do we find nounced from the bench and Therefore, 15, Court. O.S.Supp.1988, Ch. in the filed this parties. brief this counter-claim Presbyterian Hospi- 1.11(a); only we conclude can App. Rule during time the Bar Associ- Appellant’s objection have been tolled the motion solely acting complaint. to the limitations was directed on his ation was question, arguing that limitiations should is no was abandoned. There abuse of trial discretion shown record. Matter of REINSTATEMENT Jay Membership OF Rolla COOK Accordingly, opinion of the Court of the Oklahoma Bar Association and to judg- is VACATED Attorneys. the Roll of ment of the District is REINSTAT-
ED all HARGRAVE, C.J., Supreme Court Oklahoma. LAVENDER, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON, SUMMERS, KAUGER and JJ., concur.
OPALA, V.C.J., by separate concurs
opinion. *4 Justice,
OPALA, Vice Chief
concurring. today’s judgment
I fully concur in and in I separately
the court’s but write journal stress entry that the minute
of an order that sustains motion for should show that
judgment was rendered should in- judgment.1
clude terms
When the case is terminated because the
judge finds no material fact issue to be in
genuine controversy, spoken the decision is in lawyers’ parlance grants as one that
party’s practice
far better tois characterize the pronounces as one that specific and to set its out terms. saying, example, merely
Instead
“plaintiff's or defendant’s motion for sum-
mary granted,” minute
entry go should further and show “summa-
ry judgment providing to the defendant plaintiff nothing”, recover or “summa- for_” ry judgment
(here space the blank should contain the money adjudged
amount of or recite an possession of specifically
award de- personal). or property,
scribed real principles summary judgment practice question 1. The be tried. A of law would then arise as by today’s opinion counseled conceptual affinity manifest a close to which was entitled Once governed to those which un- identified, plead- Procedure, now-repealed der the Code Civil ings would follow and be rendered as a matter seq., prius 12 O.S.1971 1 et when a nisi §§ Hogan, of law. Mires v. 79 Okl. 192 P. found, sponte, either on motion sua 815 [1920]. pleadings in the case raised no issues of fact to