Chandler (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Tyree

¶ 13 ORDERED IT THEREFORE IS Bаr Association application resignation approved.

and Robison's ORDERED IT IS FURTHER Roll from the name be stricken

Respondent's make no Attorneys that he membership in the Okla

for reinstatement years prior to five Bar Association

homa of this order. effectivedate

from the that if ORDERED IT FURTHER IS Security Fund of

any funds of the Clients' expended are Association Bar

the Oklahoma must show the Respondent, he

on behalf the same has been paid and that

amount interest, Bar to the Oklahoma

repaid, with such to reimburse

Association

reinstatement. THE SU BY ORDER OF DONE THIS IN CONFERENCE

PREME COURT March, DAY

1st OF ALL CONCUR. JUSTICES

2004 OK 16 INC., (U.S.A.), National

CHANDLER Lag Company and

American Insurance Agency, Walkingstick

ere &

Inc., Appellees, TYREE,

Terry Insurance Fund J.

Commissioner, Appellant. 96,436.

No.

Supreme of Oklahoma. Court

March Jones,

Linda R. Driskill and Driskill Jake Jones, OK, City, & R. Oklahoma Patrick Gilmore, Chandler, OK, for Plaintiffs/Appel- lees. Solomon, II,

Stephen George G. W. Velotta Gladys Cherry, Derryberry, Quigley, E. Naifeh, OK, City, & for Solomon Defendant/Appellant.

EDMONDSON,J. proceed The substantive issue in this ing involves whether the Commissioner of the State Insurance Fund was provide compensation insurance 1. The State Insurance Fund is now known as the Oklahoma Statutes to The State Insurance CompSource deemed Morgan, Fund shall be references to Oklahoma. Nicholas CompSource See 85 Oklahoma." The action was commenced in the 131(e): "(e) O.S.2001 The official name of the change name, District Court to the fund which is known as 'The State Insurance ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​‍upon and we refer to the Fund based -the name designated Fund' shall be in all future references litigation by parties. in this used 'CompSource Any Oklahoma'. references in yet occurred. On June damages had not Fund in competes company who District Court denied insurance. providing workers' trial, applica granted but com motion for new Plaintiffs, entities with three The order (U.S.A.), stay pending appeal. National tion for a ownership, Chandler mon request no references to the Lagere & contained Company, and American Insurance (collec Inc., appealed and the Court damages. Chandler Agency, Walkingstick Insurance opinion an that re pro Appeals issued Chandler), in the business of of Civil are tively, by the District Court. insurance. the writ issued compensation versed viding workers' American Insurance However, only National ¶ 5 in this sought certiorari Chandler carrier. Comрany is an pending on the matter was Court. While ¶ 2 in the Dis sought mandamus Chandler a to dismiss the Fund filed motion certiorari Tyree, Terry Com compel J. trict Court argues that The Fund appeal the as moot. State Insurance of the Oklahoma missioner appeal is the District Court only the issue on Fund) (or provide Chandler of workers' compelling the issuance order The Dis insurance. compensation workers' The Fund compensation insurance. the Fund was that trict determined Court compensation in that has workers' Chandler con insurance. We provide the required to source, and that the surance from another its not meet burden did clude that Chandler this other is moot of proceeding because an afforded proof it must be of and insurance. discovery to obtain engage in opportunity to ¶ 6 appeal claims that the is burden, if such facts exist. facts to meet sought damages resulting moot because contro discussing merits of the Before the policy. to issue a from the Fund's failure us, appellate address versy we must before argues that the Fund would be filed motion to dismiss jurisdiction and the damages remand if this Court for on liable by the Fund. have is appeal on it should concludes that a dismissal of the policy, and sued Appellate Jurisdiction I. rights leave the appeal would in the District petition Chandler's Chandler also undecided. a of in the form of writ relief Court seeks public interest appeal presents an issue of damages. judgment a for mandamus and reoccur, likely that such is an will and which request is a The mandamus relief mootness doctrine. We first exception to the policy a the Fund to issue court order jurisdiction. address The trial insurance. writ of manda аn alternative issued damages claim for is Chandler's objection. The an The Fund filed mus. specific in the District Court. The pending of fact. The Stipulations parties filed Joint is consis statutory procedure for mandamus request for stipulations did not address general procedure and allows tent with this Entry Judgment was damages. A Journal adjudication damages part of that as That order states filed March 1460.2 One issue proceeding. fully both briefed the issues have been Stroud, City v. 1963OK Braine mandamus, directs the parties, issues recovery damages whether a was compensa рolicy a of workers' Fund to issue applied to a defendant's pursuant journal en tion insurance to Chandler. wrongful conduct that was also element damages. try issue of is silent on the to, of, cause of gave rise the mandamus apply Braine said that 1460 did for a new trial action. filed a motion 4 The Fund The Fund also responded. wrongful conduct. Braine damages for such and Chandler request that a failure to further concluded appeal. Chandler re sought stay pending a damages in a mandamus judgment a such argument sponded with an action, referees, jury, 0.8.2001 1460: as in a civil costs; also peremptory mandamus shall plaintiff, judgment given he be for the If delay. granted to him without damages have which he shall shall recover the sustained, by the court or to be ascertained (claim judicata support plea appealable of res one of by right those that is subsequent judgment. in a for preclusion) Liberty action dam Bank and Trust Co. v. ages. Rogalin, Id. 385 P.2d at 481-482. Deposit Tidwell, Federal Corp. Ins. parties do not discuss whether the 1841-1342. In Feder pending damages part claim for Deposit Corp. Tidwell, al supra, Ins. we transaction as thе claim. same mandamus If appeal dismissed an portion recast a request damages defined petition error as an single cause of action that also includes the prohibition. Id. 820 P.2d at 1842. must relief,3 requested mandamus then the order appeal dismiss the herein because of a lack of granting in this case the writ of mandamus appellate jurisdiction. However, prohibition interlocutory

would be an order anterior requested prevent was herein to the enforce judgment. This is so because writ writ, ment of the trial court's and we issue adjudicate dоes not ac entire cause of that writ with directions for proceed further (a 681, judgment tion. 12 See is ings in the trial court. rights a final determination of the parties respect particular with to a cause of The Commissioner claims that relief). action or claim for The writ would is moot. The mootness doc appealable judgment. thus not applies appellate trine to both original and procedural posture of the dis jurisdiction proceedings.5 We do not view susceptible being trict court writ is not the motion to dismiss for mootness as bar timely аppeal. example, construed as a For 6 assuming jurisdiction to our granting appealed even a writ such as this could be if prohibition ancillary dismissing appeal. an adjudication pursuant to an all claims 994, to 12 0.8.2001 994 certification ¶12 concept of mootness is often was made in this case. The absence of the linked to cireumstances result in a certification shows that ap- the order is not inability grant relief, court's effective pealable prior adjudication of the remain any opinion controversy pos in that damagеs. Liberty claim for Bank and hypothetical sess characteristics of a or advi City Rogalin, Trust Co. Oklahoma v. sory opinion. Westinghouse Corp. Elec. v. 10, 836, OK P.2d 838.4 20, Authority, Grand River Dam 1986 OK 713, 720; This potential Rogers Court has observed 720 P.2d v. Excise Bd. of problems 95, 754, occur County, when a trial court Greer 1984 OK 701 P.2d T61. adjudicates part of a cause of action and Mootness will not act as a bar when the adjudication immediately makes that challenged effec capable repetition yet event is tive, although evading the trial court's order is not review. Federal Land Bank of dеr, 3. This Court has that a cause of action and the motion for new trial could not have (or relief) using 0.$.2001 claim for is defined appeal. the transac extended the time to See 12 wrongful tion, occurrence, or act. v. adjudication Further, 990A. of a motion for Retherford interlocutory new trial addressed to an 178, ¶ 11, Halliburton 1977 OK order is Company, LCR, 966, 968-969; appealable. Properties, Denton, Chandler v. 1987 OK not Inc. v. Linwood 38, ¶ 13, 20, n. 741 P.2d 855, 863-864; Resolu 1996 OK 73, 19, 1388, n. 918 P.2d 1393. tion Trust v. Greer, 126, ¶11, 5, n. Corp. 257, 260; Greenberg Wolfberg, 911 P.2d v. See, eg., County 5. Lawrence Cleveland Home 147, OK n. 890 P.2d 42, 895. 28, 314, Authority, (ap- Loan 626 P.2d peal); Dept. State ex rel. Human Sеrvices v. 4. We need not discuss whether the writ could be Colclazier, 824, 826, 950 P.2d appealable interlocutory appealable as an order (exception applied to the mootness doctrine in an (1) by right. This is so because The time to original jurisdiction proceeding). appeal interlocutory commence an from an order appealable by right is not altered a motion for (12 Development Corporation 0.$.2001 6. Morrow v. American App., Okla.Sup. new trial Ch. 1.22(b) (F), 1.40(e), 1.61.), (2) Ct.R. & Co., Bank Trust 816 P.2d 537 {assuming jurisdiction trial writ is dated March issuance petition ancillary appeal juris- in error was filed on June writ when exists). thirty days more than after the trial court's or- diction The Fund re not receive the insurance. Story, 1988 OK Wichita stating that: sponded with a letter "While into many considerations that enter there are controversy argues that Fund 13 The unique coverage, the issues a decision of purchased work is because moot providing conflicts faced both from a source ers' were overage a fellow insurance carrier Fund. Chandler than the other to decline prevailing factors our decision it has a cоntroversy not moot because coverage." Legislature damages. The claim for pending policy em public expressed a clear has sought a writ of mandamus Compensa by the Workers ployees covered issued an trial court. The trial court through insurance either tion Act be secured alterna response to the alternative writ. arrangement es through a self-insurance writ, it did not tive the Fund stated ability pay. employer's tablishing the Self possessed the insurance because issue Group v. YWCA Management Insurers' to enter into insurancе discretion to decline City, 1997 OK entity a business contracts who is public complying with employer An might be competitor, and whose interests pressing insurance while policy providing subsequently Fund. The Fund adverse against is an judicial complaint stipulated: capable public interest event of 17, 2000, the Insur- November On that Chandler's repetition. thus hold We "... Plaintiffs that ance Fund advised coverage dur obtained alternative insurance unique and conflicts faced both issues not moot the contro this does coverage for a fellow providing in versy, motion to dismiss becаuse of and the prevail- competing insurance carrier were is denied. mootness to cover- ing factors in our decision decline untimely sum, appeal would be 14 In this provided has not age." Defendant we construe the re regardless of whether any reason other than those Plaintiffs with mandamus damages quest for 17, 2000, letter contained in the November separate a cause of of action or as cause declining Plain- to insure for Defendant's jurisdic appellate lacks action. This Court employees. tiffs' claim for dam pending tion because at citation omit- Stipulations, O.R. Joint accordingly We ages in the District Court. ted. Ap of Civil opinion of the Court vacate the argued in the trial court that: Chandler predicated upon the it is peals herein because absolutely provision no under "There is jurisdiction. existence of allows the State Insurance statute which compen- provide to refuse to workers' Proceeding II. The District Court coverage any entity due sation insurance to controversy tried on the was entity an insurance to the fact that is submitted joint stipulations briefs and competitor a of the State company that is (Chandler) employ parties. plaintiffs Fund." at 66. O.R. in people Chan approximately ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​‍five hundred argues that the Fund did Chandler dler, Except for the State Insur Oklahoma. deny possess the discretion to insurance Fund, largest writer of is the ance NAICO carrier. The Fund competing to a insurance in Okla compensation insurance to a was not entitled Chandler application requested an homa. Chandler writ of mandamus because: tendering a quote for for and a insurance required premium. Chаndler check for the prove that a com- 1. Chandler failed to the Fund de application, carrier, but recently submitted relocated peting insurance Oklzhoma, opera- met Oklahoma's with an amount provide has clined to Chandler pay premium to tender as its impact Chandler requirements and does not tional Fund; carrying of the the safe ment. provide carriers had declined provide 2. Other Fund also declined Chandler; insurance, why it would asked relationship operation observed, 3. A contractual with a com- are not or which is imрact petitor competi- beyond carrying the safe of State Insur- contrary Fund, ability, tive to the Commissioner's ance but shall power not have fiduciary duty authority, not to except enter into contracts provided as otherwise in Fund; contrary to the interests this act to any compensa- to insure refuse tion risk tendered premium with the there- possesses 4. The Commissioner discre- for; deny insurance; tion to 134(A)(2), added). 85 0.8.2001 (emphasis satisfy 5. Chandler failed its burden of recently commented on language proof for mandamus. Fehring Fund, v. State Ins. 2001 OK 19 P.3d 276. Chandler contends that NAICO has been

located Oklahomа since with redo- Today, general purpose SIFs simply 2000; mestication to Oklahoma employers against liability insure for work- complied with all Oklahoma examination re- compensation ers' claims and to assure quirements, previously undergone and had employees entitled to benefits under our routine financial examination the State of workers they laws that re- three-year period ending Nebraska for a ceive such through benefits the insurance. 1998; proof and that the burden of should be 0.S8.Supp.1995,$ provides 131. SIF on the Fund to show that NAICO not an private such insurance public to both entity for which insurance should issue. employers. Also, governing SIFs statutes that the Fund: indicate, plainly although fairly it is to be competitive private

... has never how insurance carriers the mere fact providing insurance, competitor such generally NAICO is it a SIF is makes non-profit 131(c)], carry. [§ risk that is unsafe to endeavor and its The Defen- ability to decline to employer insure an produced dant has evidence nor has it purposes attempted employer's the any to set forth evidence that insuring beyond Plaintiffs "is compensation liability the safe car- is restricted. 85 134(A)(2). § Supp.1996, 0.8. rying of the Insurance State Fund." 280,. Id. 2001OK at 19 P.3d at Surreply Reply, Plaintiffs' Defendant's O.R. at 64-65. agree We with Chandler deciding Chandler concludes that the discretion is limited when Fund is re- whether quired to to issue issue insurance to if it insurance to Chandler. NAICO statutory requirements satisfies the for ob- ¶ 20 argues The Fund that a decision taining insurance. particular whether to insure a risk is an ¶ 19 parties beyond The scope discuss the exercise discretion the Willis, § 85 In 184. Part of that review. Bird v. judicial statute states: 927 we that a district against issue a writ of mandamus conducting A. In thе business and af- agency a state board or compel per the Fund, fairs of the State Insurance the act, formance of an and to correct an official's fund, Commissioner of the said other abuse of discretion. Id. 927 P.2d 552. at power authority officer to whom such The Fund's characterization act as Commissioner, delegated by be the discretionary does not insulate that act from provided by title, Section 183 of this shall judicial review. power authority: full have ... 184(A)(2) any 2. To decline to insure risk in Section states that when a requirements which the minimum premium оf the is tendered7 the Commissioner may: construction, regard law with equipment challenges

7. The Fund the trial court's writ Fund declined do this for Chandler. Chandler upon premium requested quote purpose paying based the fact that no was ten- for the the provides quotes premium. dered Chandler. The Fund The trial court writ is not enforceable insurance, premiums seeking on to those and the at this time due herein, to our and we opinion 604 in the any risk which adverse to the competitor with interests to insure 1. Decline policyholders. Fund and its law with requirements

minimum construction, oр- equipment regard to at Reply, O.R. Defendant's observed, are not eration part of the 22 131 of Title 85 was Section Fund, creating Act the any which is risk to insure 2. Decline fairly that the fund be too Insur- carrying of State beyond safe insurance carriers. competitive with other Fund, and ance 1(c). § Ch. 28 Section 1933 OklaSess.Laws provid- as otherwise Decline to insure Act and Title was of that 1988 134 of ed in this act. not have provided that the Fund "shall it also pro authority, except as otherwise power or Fund argue also whether Act to refuse to insure vided coveragе pursu deny possesses discretion premi compensation risk tendered with the asserts statutes. Chandler ant to other Ch. um therefor." Okla 184(A)(2) solely to rea §in refers "this act" 4(2). possess the dis § The Fund does that are listed issuing insurance sons for not competi make the Fund less than cretion to hand, the Fund § the other 134. On agree insuring a risk. thus tive when to statutes other "this act" refers 181(c) legislative § is a the Fund that with the discretion that also control than similar to of the Fund's discretion control example, For Fund to issue insurance. expressed in 184.9 Supp.2000 upon 85 O.S. the Fund relies issuing in The Fund states 131(c). make the Fund less surance to Chandler will (c) fairly competitive other insurance fairly competitive than fund shall Said that this is a con carriers. Chandler states carriers and it is with other clusion, provide the Fund failed to and that that said fund Legislature intent of the The Fund support of the conclusion. facts nor less than more shall neither become Chandler, seeking manda responds that self-supporting. mus, showing that has the burden of argued that: trial court the arbitrarily. Fund acted Objection, filed Summarizing from our typical A case for mandamus "fairly Fund to be requires the Act (1) seeking party has five elements: 85 0.8. other carriers. competitive" with adequate remedy in the plain writ has fiduciary, (2) law, 131. The Commissioner party ordinary course of the adverse to enter contracts who not legal right seeking possesses a clear the writ 85 O.S. policyholders. (de of its (8) the interests respondent sought, to the relief and foreseeable § It reasonable 188.2. fendant) plain legal duty regarding the has a im- relationship (4) could that a contractual refused sought, respondent has relief (5) ability fairly compet- respon duty, to be that pact perform to duty not involve the exercise for the Com- dent's does It is also reasonable itive. a of mandamus However writ discretion.10 insuring a concerned about missioner to be any fiduciary's or other individual the Fund's conduct address whether need not challenging involving the prevents capacity the writ on basis the it from act in transaction premium. unpaid party of a whose Insurance Fund on behalf State State to the interests of the interests are adverse 28, filed March Court order was 8. The District partici- Fund or the interests of not 131 was 2001. The 2001 amendment ...." benefiсiaries; or or pants July.2001 following Okla. Sess. effective until the §§ discusses the 378, 1, 4. No Laws, Ch. party opinions describe three of the Court's 10. Some amendment, apply the ver- and we effect of the combining one ele- writ into elements the District at the time of sion of 131 in effect act, the existence a refusal ment respondent's Court's order. plain legal duty, that the a and a statement O.$.2001 duty an exercise of discretion. does not involve upon 85 9. The Fund also relied See, 138.2(B)(2): e.g., Co. v. District Oklahoma Gas & Electric 61, 63, P.2d fiduciary respect State In- 158, 7, to the Court, "B. A writ). (stating requisites to the three surance Fund shall not: ... arbitrary sum, statutory grounds. used to correct an official's the three peti In a abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Smith tioner required for mandamus is to show a Bd., 84, 257, Banking 1980 OK 612 P.2d of, perform, violation or failure to the rele duty. vant statute or ¶ 25 party seeking A mandamus "has proving legal right the clear burden today, In our pos case the Fund corresponding duty resting a himself and party sesses the discretion to refuse to be a upon defendant in order to ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​‍authorize the to an insurance contract that would result peremptory issuance of the writ." Lee v. being fairly competitive. less than 8, 390 Myles, 1964 OK P.2d argued 85 0.8. 131. The Fund in the trial quoting, Muskogee Stubbs v. Excise Bd. of issuing insurance to Chandler County, 1935 OK 49 P.2d 83. We have fairly would make the Fund less than com applied general party rule to mean that a petitive, and that Chandler had the burden to seeking mandamus has the burden of show prove argues otherwise. Chandler that once necessary support those facts issuance issued, the alternative writ the Fund had the writ. showing burden of cause that peremptory Brenner, In ex rel. Thomas v. writ of mandamus should not issue. Chan P.2d former members dler the Fund did not do so department sought of a fire reinstatement. otherwise, Stipulations, the Joint or and the They they contended that could be removed peremptory properly writ issued. The Fund department only good from the fire impermissibly Chandler is shift specified by sufficient cause as a state stat ing a burden to the Fund. they ute. Id. 42 P.2d at 824. We said showing they had a burden had a clear ¶ 29 Issuance of an alternative writ does reinstatement; ie., right petitioners change particular not fact needed as an required present showing were facts petitioner's element of claim to a fact needed upon good their removal was not based anas element of a defense: "It is well settled sufficient cause. proof that the burden of upon party rests Tirey, Hall v. having up by the affirmative as made explained we that an official seek pleadings, party prove and such every must ing reinstatement to office via mandamus had necessary essential fact to establish his cause prove the burden "to that his removal did County action or defense." Board of comply legislative with the standard." Id. at County Commissioners Marshall v. Snell ¶ 20, 501 P.2d at 502. In Hall we grove, 276. The Prop that member of the State Board for issuing Fund stated that insurance would erty Casualty Rates could be removed being fairly result in the Fund less than pursuant from office ato statute that listed cireumstances, competitive. In these Chan ¶ 10, causes for removal. Id. at 501 P.2d at showing dler is to state facts 499-500. That statute allowed for removal the issued insurance would not make the incompetency, "in neglect duty, case of competitive. Fund less than ¶ 8, malfeasance office. ..." Id. at 499, quoting, after an alterna § at 74 2. O.S.1971 In a manda proceeding mus where the official was seek tive writ issues a defendant has the burden reinstatement, Governor did not have making of an presenting answer and defens presenting showing burden of facts peremptory that the es to a writ. 12 This is correct. statutory removal was one of the three 1457.11 00.98.2001 Chandler states that Rather, official, facts, causes. the removed any, sup as the does not know what if mandamus, party seeking port argument, was to and that the Fund show facts that the removal was not one of should raise those facts in its answer. party on the writ shall have whom been served 11. 12 0.9.2001 1457: cause, may by show answer made in the same Answer petition manner as an answer to a in a civil On the return writ, of alternative day allow, day may such further as the court action. 606 answer in a writ and proceed 133 The alternative mandamus in a Issues may amended as proceeding be mandamus ex rel. civil action. State as in a ing are tried 12 civil action. 0.8.2001 pleadings in a Principal Public State Bd. Affairs ordinary trial Discovery part § 1459.14 503, 16, 519 Corp., 1974 OK

Funding promotes the procedure, and it preparation Discov 507, The Oklahoma citing, 1459. truth and ultimate dis of the ascertainment 3224-8237, governs Code, §§ 12 ery 0.9.2001 in accordance there position of the lawsuit discovery of a in all suits procedure "the Bar Associa ex rel. Oklahoma with. State 12 in this state." courts nature in all civil 14, 10, n. 787 P.2d Lloyd, 1990 OK tion v. Further, discovery use of § 3224.12 City v. Mel Oklahoma YWCA of proceedings is in mandamus procedures 304, son, 311. 944 P.2d 1997 OK Co., See, v. Retail Credit eg., Polin novel. to amend its opportunity An for Chandler (directing 469 P.2d to amend and for the Fund alternative writ action plaintiff's court to reinstate the trial discovery pro will as a result of its answer mo plaintiff's to reconsider mandamus and ulti of the truth and mote the ascertainment interrogatories). to compel answers tion lawsuit in accordance disposition mate ¶ given opportu Generally, party is an therewith. cir discovery procedures when nity to use opinion summary, we vacate the exclusively op are known cumstances Appeals and dismiss the of Civil the Court Remington Arms rel. party. ex posing jurisdiction. Ap appeal for lack of Powers, Co., Inc. v. pellant's motion to dismiss is denied. claim example, an insurer's For prohibi ancillary in the nature of issue relief in in a may discoverable file be tion, that the trial court's writ and direct allegation of the insurer's breach

volving an until Plain shall not be enforced mandamus Darzenkiewics duty its insured. of a engage in discov opportunities tiffs have Jackson, 904 P.2d 66. Such alternative writ to meet ery and amend their whether the insurer litigation raises the issue op proof, and Defendant an their burden of payment to withhold discovery had a reasonable basis respond any portunity to the carrier requested insured pleadings when the be filed. alternative obligation. cоntractual perform its Heffron HODGES, HARGRAVE, WATT, C.J., 1 85 County, 2003 Court v. District KAUGER, BOUDREAU ques 75, ¶ 17, 1077. The JJ., WINCHESTER, concur. is similar: Whether tion raised non-arbi Fund had a reasonable or not the LAVENDER, J., [ OPALA, V.C.J. issuing trary to withhold basis part. and dissent in concur per the Fund to requested when Chandler LAVENDER, OPALA,V.C.J., with whom obligation.13 Chandler statutory form its J., dissenting part. joins, engage in given opportunity to must be ap today's dismissal opportunity I concur discovery in the trial court as nonap- prosecuted from peal which satisfy proof. its burden ordinary 0.$.2001 prepared course of busi ments 3224: litiga anticipation prepared in ness and those through of this title shall Sections 3224 tion). as the Oklahoma known and be cited Discovery Discovery Code Code. The Oklahoma 1459; 0.$.2001 § 14. 12 discovery govern procedure for in all shall allowed-Similarity courts in this state. pleading suits of a civil nature in all to civil No further action allegation pleading assert that infor is al- 13. The Fund did not or written No other privileged underlying its decision was mation are the answer; and these lowed than the writ effect, case, today discovery. exempt pleadings Our decision have the same from deciding the infor be amended as whether and are to be сonstrued should not be read action; is, manner, controversy pleadings in a civil in this ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​‍same mation used the Fund tried, thereby joined must be and the issues privileged. eg., v. District See, not, or is Heffron had, ¶ 21, in the same proceedings thereon County, the further Court Oklahoma in a civil action. (distinguishing docu manner as between P.3d ruling pealable mid-litigation as well as controversy

the court's to declare refusal mootness; I dissent in suit dismissible for pronouncement of its "ancil

from the court's conditionally pro

lary" command that writ's the trial court's enforcement

hibits

latter's own writ of mandamus whose effec suspended by pre- presently

tiveness is prius

midappeal nisi order. advance cause, disposition of a court is

final district

utterly quests for modifica free entertain vacation) (or

tion relief as well as allow LCR, pleadings amendments to the on file Properties,

Inc. v. Linwood Johnson,

P.2d Johnson v. In the absence jurisdictional infirmity

of a demonstrated

or of some threatened use of unauthorized

judicial force, the trial court's freedom to range plenary

exercise a broad control (and interlocutory rulings

over all not)

should be restrained this court's

midstream interference. District Heffron County, Court Oklahoma exceptional 1073. The factors for

triggering power this court's writ are absent ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​‍absolutely showing There is of a

here. anyone's protection

need for from the judicial usurpation power.

threat stages original

Post-termination of this solely should hence be charted adversary parties' chosen course.

2004 OK 17 COX, Petitioner/Appellee,

Bruce R. Oklahoma, rel., ex

STATE OKLAHOMA

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SER

VICES, Respondent/Appellant, Commission, Merit Protection

Respondent. 96,899.

No.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March

Case Details

Case Name: Chandler (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Tyree

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Mar 9, 2004

Citation: 87 P.3d 598

Docket Number: 96,436

Court Abbreviation: Okla.