City of Tahlequah v. Lake Region Electric, Cooperative, Inc.

University persons at the or staff 2002 OK 2 members or the Health Sciences Center of Oklahoma TAHLEQUAH, Oklahoma, CITY OF Osteopathic Medicine of Oklahoma College of , Plaintiff/Appellee engaged in University, are not who State acting not an adminis- teaching duties and ELECTRIC, LAKE REGION are, instead, prac- capacity, and who trative COOPERATIVE, INC., providing medical treat- ticing medicine Defendant/Appellant, patients. ment to CONCLUSION America, ex rel. Rural United States Administration, Electrification {15 hold that Dr. Gutierrez is We Defendant. employee of the state of Oklahoma 95,563. No. liability provi- under immune from tort Tort Claims Act sions of Governmental Supreme Court of Oklahoma. exemptions forth hereinabove. The set immunity state-employed physi- pertaining to Jan. paragraph final

clans contained 152(5)(b)(8) inapplicable to Dr. Gutier- physician faculty

rez he was not a because person University of

member or staff at the Health Sciences Center or the Osteopathic

College of Medicine Oklahoma University. Appellee's Motion to Re-

State Appeals Opinion for Publica-

lease Court of

tion is denied. PREVIOUSLY GRANT-

CERTIORARI

ED; OPIN- COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; THE TRIAL

ION ORDER OF AFFIRMED.

COURT

HARGRAVE, C.J.; HODGES,

LAVENDER, SUMMERS, WINCHESTER,

JJ., concur.

WATT, V.C.J., concurs result. KATUGER,BOUDREAU, JJ.,

OPALA,

dissent. Cole, Jr., Stilwell, OK,

Lloyd E. plaintiff/appellee. Derryberry, Quigley,

Patrick D. Shore Naifeh, City, OK and Solomon & III, Young, H. Young, of Nathan Cooperative, Region]1 H. Nathan [Lake Electric Inc.'s OK, III, P.C., Tahlequah, for the defen- electric facilities and service within City's days dant/appellant. corporate limits.2 Three later City proceeding instituted District Brandon, OK, Muskogee, Susan Stidham County, of Cherokee Oklahoma to con Court America, States defendant/United sought-after demn the interests from Lake Electrification Administration. ex rel. Rural Region applicable provisions under the of 18 487.2(k)3 ©.8.1991 The United States of LAVENDER, J. America, ex rel. Rural Electric Administra T1 to the Uniform Certification Pursuant tion, party-defendant was named as [REA] Act, §§ Questions of Law 20 0.8.1991 of security it because owns interest Appeals of seq., the States Court et United sought property to be condemned. June On following Tenth certified the for the Circuit 19, 1998 REA removed the case to the Unit question: for the ed States District Court Eastern Bill [11 21-222] 0.8.1998 Senate of District Oklahoma. "prospective and retroactive" declares a municipal condem- moratorium on certain ¶ 3 Upon Region removal Lake moved for cooper- rural electric nations of facilities of proceeding's the condemnation dismissal as atives and electric utilities. Oklahoma serting provided the moratorium Constitution, V, 52, provides article section of 11 21-222. for the terms legislature "power lacks to take that the pertinent statutory language is: away cause of action" after commence- [a] hereby There is declared a moratorium light In of statements in ment of a "suit." on all case law that Oklahoma pursuant instituted to Section 487.2 of Title special proceedings, not ac- matters Statutes, pri- 18 of the Oklahoma initiated equity, in tions at law or suits does the July or to 2002. The moratorium shall pro- affect a condemnation apply municipalities public also to all or ceeding filed the enactment of Sen- before attempt trusts thereof which to condemn ate Bill 8887 the facilities of electric utilities or cooperatives purpose rural electric for the I delivery utilizing such facilities for the of FACTUAL PERSPECTIVE energy. If full power electric and consum- supply choice in the of electric May City Tahlequah er 1998 the On energy in on [City] purchase Region implemented all of and is this state offered to Lake electric-power Region 1. Lake rural distribu- included, aforesaid, owns operates furnishing energy provides electricity system of electric to its cooperative to its for tion inhabitants, furnishing seven-county cooperative elec- the members in a northeast Oklahoma energy in such area shall transfer tric [REA area. The Rural Electric Administration or village, upon request, city, the Utilities financed such town or its Service] now called Rural Region's cooperative's the electric distribution facili- and holds a secured interest in Lake furnishing energy mortgage agreements electric in said pursuant to its in ties used in facilities ..., however, others). following (among subject, property area to the the condemned city, village requirement: town or shall pay cooperative an to com- to the amount City alleges that it made known since 1994 its pensate cooperative value of fair Region's to condemn Lake electrical intention cooperative's acquired facilities to be City's corpo- service within facilities and city, village. cooperative or If such town rate limits. city, village agree upon cannot town or cooperative, paid the amount to be to the provisions pertinent of 18 3. The O.S.1991 village is authorized to file town or city, § 437.2 are: county proceeding court of the in the district any city, village, power: town or or cooperative have the in which such shall thereof, (k) acquisition operate part is located To ... maintain and electric cooperative's ...;pro- electric distribution facili- lines transmission and distribution energy furnishing in said ties used in electric further if such town or vil- vided city, lage in which an area has been shall added.] area.... [Emphasis litigation facts elicited the federal-court July con- or before (2) passing upon the effect feder authorizing munici- provisions demnation issues, proof in al on the facts and to condemn utilities palities with electric briefly the case. have outlined the case's cooperatives electric We of rural the facilities underpinnings place the certified Title 18 of the factual 487.2 of contained Section proper perspective. It hereby repealed. question If is for Statutes Tenth the United States Cireuit Court implemented choice is not retail consumer analyze Appeals impact our answer's July this state on or before this null and void. ultimately moratorium shall become and facts before it.5 case provided City herein shall Lastly, The moratorium note that raises constitutional we applica- (based upon and retroactive prospective Legislature's have al questions [Emphasis added.] repeal upon tion. effect leged act and its proceedings instituted to vested denied Lake Re The District Court U.S. same) enforce the which are neither em (1) motion, holding the gion's that because inextricably in nor intertwined with braced proceeding City-initiated Appeals the Tenth the U.S. Court of for § brought 21-222's action" before "cause of question. certified To the extent Circuit's (2) effective moratorium became (constitutional otherwise) or are issues V, Legisla § art 524 denies the Orna.Const. parties' beyond raised the briefs which are power abridge a "cause of action" ture to question's scope, the certified the Court re instituted, once the retrouctive addressing the frains from same. stop City's to condem could not be asserted Region's nation of Lake facilities. III ¶ appointed com The U.S. District Court just compensation to determine missioners QUESTION CERTIFIED ANSWERED facilities The for the condemned electric ¶ 6 posited query essentially The asks appointed made their deter commissioners part whether the condemnation of Although report. filed a Lake minations and system qualifies of an electrification objected report, the same was Region to the protected action" which is from "cause of Region Lake April confirmed on legislative abrogation by provisions of [unsuccessfully] to the appealed next U.S. V, § art onee the same is OxraConst. Appeals for the Tenth Cir Circuit Court of court,. brought in the district Answered sim jury sought a trial. Region cuit. Lake then ply, municipal type condemnation of the February an award of On "special proceed here in issue is a $3,746,222.00 by the entered federal dis was ing" and not a "cause of action" as contem City's just compensation for trict court as V, plated provisions. § art. under 52's taking Region's property. of Lake Hence, § 21-222 moratorium on munici pal systems of electrification condemnations II constitutionally infirm is not since it is out purview side the of the noted constitutional THE RE- COURT'S FUNCTION WHEN Legislature's powers restriction on QUES- SPONDING TO CERTIFIED pending affect a "cause of action." A FEDERAL TION FROM COURT ¶ 7 jurispru Oklahoma's extant appeal from which Because the proceeding- question emanates is not before dence defines a condemnation certified special here in (1) such as the one issue-as resolution, apply us for we refrain response statutory proceeding designed to determine the declared state-law action, V, provides: power away to take such cause or Oxta.Const. art. sec. 52 no of destroy any existing defense to [Em- suchsuit. Legislature power have no to revive shall phasis any remedy may added.] right have become or which time, by lapse by any barred of statute of this State. After suit has been commenced on Ford, Brown action, any Legislature have cause shall single damages property jurisprudence specifically tant action the holds that a proceeding special pro "is a private persons use.6 taken from public taking ceeding of eminent domain or and not a civil action. [Authorities private property is a fundamental attrib proceedings omitted] Condemnation do not sovereign ute of the state7 that is ciream- involve a tort not civil actions at law provisions art. equity.12 scribed OK1A.CONST. or suits in Because a condemna provides § 24 proceeding special statutory which essence that such tion is a pro just takings only accomplished can with ceeding brought just compensa to determine public taking tion for a and is not a "cause of compensation. of condemnation lies dormant within the State until such time remedy wrong, action" instituted to legis Legislature by specific latively-effected stay as the enactment de of such through V, lineates the manner and whom it implicate would neither nor violate art. may legislative be exercised.8 Such authori cireumseription legislative power 52's away action-regardless take a cause of provisions zation was made permitted 437.9 munici 0.98.1991 when the condemnation was instituted. The palities to condemn electric transmission and retroactive moratorium reflected terms of 21-222 is an effective exercise of lying corporate lines distribution within their Legislature empowered limits. legislative power Since constitutionally which is not to authorize condemnations under infirm.

prescribed guidelines, impose it can also QUESTION stay legislative or moratorium on an earlier CERTIFIED ANSWERED.

ly-granted right. condemnation As the HARGRAVE,C.J., HODGES, challenged legislative act [18 0.8.1991 LAVENDER, BOUDREAU and § facially regular 487.2] is and is a valid WINCHESTER, JJ., concur. recognized legislative authority, exercise of WATT,V.C.J., OPALA, T10 KAUGER compliance statutorily-authorized with the SUMMERS, JJ., dissent. generate condemnation will not wrong. only civil A cause of action arises OPALA,J., WATT,V.C.J., with whom wrong duty by when or breach of the SUMMERS, JJ., join, KAUGER and produces defendant It is occurs. what dissenting. necessity complies of action."10 When one ¶ today 1 The municipal court holds that a statutory procedure, duty with no breach of (to condemnor's of eminent domain happens. compel electrical-generation the sale of an presence system) wrong by "special statutory of a civil is enforceable identifying a critical characteristic of a prosecution proceeding" whose does not action" "cause of since "causes of action" are qualify upon as rested "cause of action." brought remedy wrongs Only to protected by provi civil which are the latter stands 52, Const.,1 § Art. sions of V Ok. from retro threatened or committed.11 Oklahoma's ex- Case, 428, 5, 11. Stone v. 34 Okla. 124 P. 6. Graham v. Duncan, 149, 1960 OK City of 960, 965. P.2d 462. 458, Graham, 12. 6 at also In re note see supra 7. Williamson, Harn v. State ex rel. Gen., Atty. I, Addition, Donly City, Heights Block Oklahoma 40, 1939 OK 184 Okla. 87 P.2d 306, 213, 268, 221, 265, 1944 OK 194 Okla. 149 P.2d recognized specie where the Court another City Savings 8. Oklahoma v. Local Federal & Loan special proceeding pur- which lies without Ass'n Oklahoma 1943 OK 42, 192 Okla. City, V, provisions. § view of Oxta Const. art 52's 134 P.2d 575; Harn, note 7 at supra Const., 1 The text of Art. V OKl. is: Legislature power ''The shall have no to revive pertinent 9. For terms of 18 O.S.1991 any right remedy may or have become § 437.2, see note 2. time, by lapse by any barred statute of any this State. suit After commenced on has action, Legislature cause of shall have no Brown, Howard v. 1935 OK power away to take such cause action or ¶ tampering.2 phrase I ac 2 The "cause of action" spective legislative cannot became legal term of art that was to as a serve The Constitution's view. cede to this synonym "right and substitute for one's to a retrospective repeal protects shield any legal writ" under form of action3-the claims for which the courts all those parlance English pleading use before the vindication the law to afford authorized system came be in the to scuttled mid-nine proceeding's judicial com in force at a century teenth on both sides of the Atlantic condemnation mencement. The instant case legal Ocean.4 Because the substantive mean under the 52 umbrella. is hence included of this troublesome soon came to enveloped controversy,5 the authors of restructuring enabling destroy any existing legislation defense to such suit." electric supplied.) (Emphasis implementation of consumer choice of retail suspends municipal legislative act that energy suppliers. Upon electric such enact- acquire power to exercise of eminent domain restructuring enabling legisla- ment of electric plants is certain electrification found in 11 implementation tion and of consumer choice 21-222, Supp.1998 § O.S. whose text is: energy suppliers, of retail electric the munici- hereby declared a moratorium on all ''There is pal provisions authorizing mu- institut- nicipalities with electric utilities condemn pursuant 437.2 of ed to Section Title 18 of the cooperatives the facilities of rural electric con- Statutes, prior July initiated tained in 437.2 of Section Title 18 of the Okla- apply also all 2002. The moratorium shall [are] homa Statutes ... hereby repealed. public municipalities or trusts thereof which provided shall have herein attempt to condemn the facilities of electric prospective application." and retroactive cooperatives electric utilities or rural purpose utilizing such facilities 2. This condemnation suit was filed in District delivery energy. electric If Oklahoma, County, May Court on 18 in Cherokee supply of electric full consumer choice It was removed to the United States Dis- energy implemented power and in this state trict Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on or con- before July acquisi- June 1998. The ban on authorizing municipali- provisions demnation tions eminent domain in contest here bears to condemn the ties with electric utilities facili- the effective date of 10 June 1998. The United cooperatives ties electric contained in or rural States District Court for the Eastern District of Section 437.2 of Title 18 of the Oklahoma cooperative's Oklahoma denied the electric mo- hereby repealed. ... If retail [are] Statutes tion to dismiss the case. It held that the munici- implemented consumer choice is not in this pality's quest presses to condemn a cause of 1, 2002, state this moratori- before July brought action that was 21-222 ban before um shall become null and void. The moratori- pro- became effective. The case was allowed to prospective provided um herein shall have and protected by ceed as one that stands 52 application." retroactive shield. legislation replaces the above After-enacted question certified statute on which the Hanpsoox Reppy, 3. Koffler and or CommonLaw changes impact based. The have no on this Preapinc 59, (1969). Publishing West Co. question. posed court's answer to the The new text the calendar-based time limit eliminates system 4. The reform that transformed writ by providing for pleadings into code was intended to advance the effect the ban shall remain in until the enact- notion that cases should turn on substantive their legislation enabling (affording ment of certain merits rather than on the technical and tactical among retail consumers a choice electric ener- Sommer, skill of the Sommer v. 1997 OK lawyer. gy suppliers). Supp.2001 The terms of 11 0.S. 123, ¶ 7, 512, J., (Opala, dissenting) 947 P.2d 521 § 21-222, amendment, the after-enacted pro- Friedenthal, Kane, (citing Mary Kay Jack H. Ar vide: (2d Miller, thur R. Civ Proceours 238-39 hereby "There is declared a on all ed.1993)). institut- pursuant ed 437.2 of 18 to Section Title of Statutes, prior compilation initiated to the enact- 5. The Field Code [the 1848 first restructuring enabling legisla- adopted required litigant ment of electric in New to al York] implementation lege plain tion and the of consumer "a and concise statement of the facts (defense energy suppliers. constituting choice of retail electric The each cause of action counterclaim) apply municipali- unnecessary repetition." moratorium shall also to all without public attempt facially simple ties or trusts thereof which N.Y. Law 1851 c. 479 1. This meanings condemn the facilities of electric utili- formula came to have varied in differ cooperatives pur- ties or rural electric ent contexts. See 4 at at Sommer, ¶7, note supra Mellinkoff, pose utilizing delivery (citing of such facilities for the 521 n. 7 David THe Lanauace or Dictionary (1963)) energy. (quoting electric The moratorium THELaw 17 Buack's Law (4th ed.1951)). shall remain in effect until the enactment of 279 Two theories came to be

473 (who "special proceeding," but tion" is not non-actionable of Civil Procedure the Federal Rules (damnum absque in third of the began work the first their ent10 detrim iniuria).11 analogue concept's The is the century)6 its use discontinued twentieth disputes.12 Despite its range judicially the new term "claim."7 favor of full redressable facets, A condemnee'srefusal multi-meaning phrase survived sell signify "alleged invasion actionable harm to the condemnor which legal parlance to an be upon which a 'recognized legal rights' predicated comes suit on a remediable Al litigant bases his claim relief"8 (against condemnor's cause of action the con- for demnee). Today's opinion incorrectly scholarly analysis may discor turns though still be many aspects, appear now to condemnation into dant on cases class of demands for redress, patently concept's meaning gives which which the law no agree on the core wrong analy from a conclusiondrawn flawed a cause of action as regards failure to state ignores legal verity indicating pleader's effort to show sis. It the undeniable missed legal rights. that a condemnee's refusal to sell is the the invasion of condemnor's redressable detriment for which Generally speaking, a cause of action 13 judicial the law affords relief.13 demand for which one is came to denote that Special proceedings longer 4 no form judicial proceeding.9 entitled to redress separate litigation class Oklahoma.14 The conceptual antonym of "cause of ac Sommer, ¶ 7, (citing testing supra 4 at at accepted the "cause of note 521 n. 7 action." Davis, 237-38, theory, citing "primary right" advanced at Professor 442 U.S. at 99 S.Ct. 2273 injury Pomeroy, al relates to the nature of the Foreign Larson v. Domestic & Commerce Corp., "aggregate leged to have been suffered. The S.Ct. L.Ed. 682, 693, 1457, 1463, 337 U.S. 69 93 doctrine, proposed by operative (1949)); Pro facts" first Reppy, supra 1628 & note 3 at Koffler Clark, (later Judge) solely on the fessor focuses (or claims) give events that rise to a claim Sommer, 17, See note 4 at at 521 n. relief. situation of state of facts that entitles a "[A] Friendenthal, 4). (citing supra note term party judicial tribu- to maintain action in with doctrinal com came to be so "encrusted Bryant, nal" is a cause of action. the law of plexity" that the drafters of the Federal Rules pleading 168- under the codes civil altogether. Civil Procedure saw fit to eliminate it 169, Little, (1894); Company Brown Koffler 442 U.S. 99 S.Ct. Passman, 228, 237, Davis v. Reppy, supra & 3 at note (1979), 60 L.Ed.2d Elliott v. Mosgrove al., 1070, et 162 Or. 1072- "Actionable detriment" is addressed in Schaff (1939). By substituting the word "claim" for ¶¶ Okla. Rose, 3-5, v. 1925 OK hoped "cause of action" the authors Chicago, P. Rock Island & Pacific conflicting to eliminate the notions about 42 Okla. Railway Beatty, meaning Blume, code's for the term. The Scope 442, 443; Larson, 141 P. Midland R. Co. v. Valley Action, 257, (1943) of a Civil 42 Mice. L.Rev. 261 41, 360, 173, 1914 OK 41 Okla. 138 P. 175. Moore, (1938)). (citing 1 Federal Practice 145 controversy For a more detailed discussion of the harm for 11. The Latin means which Davis, that the "cause of see action," surrounded Dictronary provides Law law no redress. Brack's (citing 2 238, 442 U.S. at 99 S.Ct. at 2273 n. 15 ed.1999). (7th 398 Moore, 12.06, J. Federal Practice 259 n. 26 p. (2d ed.1978)); Pomeroy, J Code Remedies 459- generally (4th ed.1904); a union 12. A "cause of action" is of the Wheaton, 466 The Code "Cause of infringe (1936); plaintiff's right with the defendant's Definition, Action": Its 22 Cornet 1Lo. Norvell, Magnolia v. 1952 ment. Petroleum Co. 817, Cause 33 Yare 13. Clark, Action, The Code 80, 20, ¶ 6, Rep (1924). & 240 P.2d 81-82. Koffler OK 820 py, supra note 3 at 85. Procepure Millar, 6. Civic or tHe Triar Court Robert Perspective 61, m New York Historicar University 445, Com'rs, 1918 OK 70 13. Watkins v. Board of Feperar Mitchell, (1952); or CiviL Press Ter Rutes Okla, 523, 524-25; P. Koch et al. v. 305, 174 ProcepurE Field, 75 et in David Can- Dudley seq. 148, Authority, Turnpike 1953 OK Law School Essays, TENARY New York University 790, 794; ¶ 18, 556, 257 P.2d Public 208 Okla. (1949). 78, ¶ 11, OK Willis, C.P.A., Service Co. v. B. 1997 995, 941 P.2d 999. action," the Fed In lieu of the term "cause of require Procedure that a com eral Rules of Civil 3-6, by §§ plain which plaint of the 14. The terms of 12 0.S.1981 contain "a short and statement recognized special proceedings a showing pleader were class that is entitled to claim actions, repealed separate were in 1984. from 422 U.S. at Davis, 238, relief." note 5 at Fep.R. 8(a)). now-repealed provided: (citing text S.Ct. at 2273 n. 15 Civ. P. 99 474 redress, special proceedings for the affordable rather than

dichotomy law of actions by Pleading categorical separation the 1984 in division for abolished a stands days, distinction redressable from nonactionable detr pre-1984 In Code.15 iment.19 proceeding and an action special between a required the courts were lay solely in how judicially pressed exercise of eminent procedural tracks.

process certain extra-code power clearly presents controversy domain adjective of the state still confines law juristic right. hence over The demand general pleading code to mainstream ac its a cause of action whose vindica constitutes recognizes It the existence of several tions. genre in the tion is affordable courts.20 ap procedural tracks reserved for separate regime govern procedural that must that differ plication to litigation utterly immaterial matter "Special proceedings" mainstream actions."16 applying 52 restriction Constitution's distinguish by we continue to is a term which legislative pending interference with a by governed litigation which is not cause of action.21 Because this condemnation general regime pleadings.17 Both "ac case was filed before the ban's enactment proceedings" pres "special must tions" statute,22 by into a it stands unaffected 18 adjudication right" ent for redressable suspension legislature's city's later judicial vindication. Con one that is right power. fit for to exercise its eminent domain a suit to vindicate one's demnation is agree as I with the Dis- Inasmuch Eastern power of eminent domain. Its exercise the [the triet's United States District Court for distinctiveness from other actions Oklahoma] the Eastern District of refusal to solely plead claim, in matters of mainstream lies I dismiss the instant would state ing, practice procedure prescribed question posed by certify answer to the of remedies 3. Division Kane, 65, ¶ 6, 717, Wilson v. 1993 OK 852 P.2d justice "Remedies in the courts of are divided State, Board Law Trustees v. 1991 Library ¶ First, Second, into: actions. 5n.11, 1285, OK 825 P.2d Special proceed- ings." § 4. Action defined common, "right generic, 18. The term embrac- ordinary proceeding is an "An action may lawfully Wesley whatever claimed." party prosecutes justice court of Funmpamentae Hohfeld, Lecar Concrr- Newcomb protec- party another for the enforcement or (Walter ed., 1964) trons 35-36 Wheeler Cook right, prevention tion of a the redress or of a (citing State, Lonas Tenn. Heisk. wrong, punishment or the of a offense." (Tenn.), 287, (1871)). 306-307 Special proceedings § 5. ''Every remedy special proceeding." other is a "The cause of action is based on the substan § 6. Kinds of action lability Landry legal tive law of ...". v. Acme First, "Actions are of two kinds: Civil. Sec- Co., 170, ¶ 17, Flour Mills Okla. ond, Criminal." (quoting Elliott v. Chica It is the substantive-law essence of an action go, Co., M. & St. P. 35 S.D. 150 N.W. Ry. proceeding-not procedural its attributes-that 779). gives quest for relief its characteristic as a pertinent provisions of cause of action. The thing 'The cause of action is the done or 0.S.1991 2001 are: done, to be omitted confers Pleading governs ''The Oklahoma Code wrong against sue; is, that the plaintiff, procedure courts of district grievance gives which caused a for which the law cognizable all suits of a civil nature whether Co., Greene v. L. Fish Furniture 272 remedy." equity except cases at law or in where statute Ill. 111 N.E. Handbook * * * (Empha- Shipman, specifies procedure." a different Preading (3rd ed.1923). or Common-Law 196 supplied.) sis 0.$.1991 provide: The terms of Although legislature may a cause 21. abolish There shall be one action to be known form of action, powerless retrospectively. it to do so is (Emphasis supplied.) as "civil action". Valley Crudup, First Nat. Bank Pauls 0.$.1991 § 16. For the text of 12 2001-2002 see 132, ¶ 8, 916-17. For the supra note 15. Const., supra §V terms of Art. OK. see note 1. Condemnation, probate, adoption juve- 17. like cases, special proceeding nile because it is is supra entirely governed by Pleading 22. See not the 1984 Code. note ¶ 7 pronouncement The court's raises for Ap States Court of [the court United the Field Code a claim that cannot be sus that peals Circuit] for the Tenth Oklahoma's imparting tained-that cause-of-action at protection to save this liti is invocable judicial exclusively proceed tributes to those gation from the after-enacted ban ings in procedure govern. which its norms of municipal acquisitions by on some condemna The Field Code24 no substantive confers tion. is, rights"25 entirety, adjective- It in its law enactment. "The cause of action is Summary of Dissent legal liability based on the substantive law of worse, today's conclusion, .."26 What is ¶ 6 governed by an Claims extra-code re which rests on no known or identifiable au necessarily gime are not exclud thority, envelopedin thick clouds of doubt prosecuted upon ed from the class of those historicity. ful jurisprudence "cause of action." Neither nor

scholarly literature that followed the aboli system support pro

tion of the writ will

nouncement the term "cause of action" code-regulated

was intended to be reserved for tigation.23

li claims Condemnation

prosecuted upon acquisi of action cause property by

tion of exercise of eminent do power.

main Coptrication Atkinson, rary scholarly, professional judicial or PromarE Law 177 et litera- Centenary Essays, seq. Dudley ture, in David Field. national as well as Oklahoma's own. (1949). Hurst, New York of Law School Willard James Txs or American Law University 90-92, Little, (1950); Company Brown and Law- meaning 24. The be ascribed here History Friedman, rence M. or American Law in contest within the context of must 340-347, (1973). & Simon Schuster concept's application informed and use in practice during under the Field Code the first Melton, Weems v. 47 Okl. 706, 150 P. century, period decade of the twentieth when the Oklahoma drafted, Constitution was pro- posed adopted. analysis The dissent's Co., Landry teachings compila- v. Acme Flour Mills note 19 consistent with the of that . impact understanding contempo- tion's at at 515

Case Details

Case Name: City of Tahlequah v. Lake Region Electric, Cooperative, Inc.

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Jan 15, 2002

Citation: 47 P.3d 467

Docket Number: 95,563

Court Abbreviation: Okla.