*1 legitimate, 4 confers legal, Section that is orderly, how- appellate gives superin ever. In adopted this Court Rules on courts, tending control over all inferior Courts, O.S.1991, Administration of Ch. however, power superintending con 1, App. gives Presiding Rule Dis- only by trol is exercised the use Judge plenary trict judicial control over all prohibition, common law writs of manda personnel serving in the district. Rule “ * * * mus, injunction. Butler v. Breckin part, reads in Temporary assign- (Okla.1967). ridge, P.2d 313 Section case, ments single be made for a grant does authority this Court the * * * multiple approval cases with the supervise superintend daily or docket presiding judge.” control of the district courts unless an ex proper I submit the procedure to be fol- traordinary employed. writ is litigation lowed in this request is to VII, Article sec. vests in this Court Presiding Judge in judicial each of the two general authority administrative over all assign judge districts to pur- for the courts in this state and authorizes us to pose of conducting pretrial all proceedings, temporarily assign judges to another court including discovery, in all the im- breast and conduct the fiscal affairs of the district plant pending respective cases in their judi- courts. Section 6 cannot be read as a cial district. summary ap- This Court’s grant authority to this Court to transfer pointment judge of one to conduct all the county cases from county under the pretrial proceedings pending yet to be theory litigation of the federal multidistrict State Oklahoma is an unau- act. judicial power. thorized exercise of Even if we could follow the federal mod- in imposing el this administrative directive parties court,
on these and the district
majority’s provide proce- order does not prerequisites
dural set forth the federal provides
act. That act for notice to all
parties in which contemplat- transfers are ed, hearing and for a any party so that who Guy GRIDER, Appellant, would be affected the transfer can offer material panel’s evidence for the consider- implant ation. The list of breast cases CORPORATION, corpo USX a Delaware appended paperwork indicates ration; Corp., Texas Oil & Gas a Dela cases, two, all the except save and are filed corporation; ware TXO Production county. Oklahoma remaining two corporation; a Delaware Ratliff are filed in county. paperwork Tulsa Exploration Company, an Oklahoma before us does not show that the Tulsa corporation; Drilling Company, Ratliff county parties any timely received notice or corporation; Diversified opportunity to be heard as to their Inc., Exploration, &Oil Gas an Okla thoughts conducting about pretrial their corporation; homa Diversified Well Oklahoma County jointly with other liti- Servicing Corp., corpora an Oklahoma gants. The pre- order creates a rebuttable tion; Ratliff, individually; Barton W. sumption of the correctness of the trans- Brewer, individually, Appel and Jim D. fer, parties may and after the fact the then lees. objection voice their to the transfer. While provides parties federal act a hear- No. 74997. transfer, today’s order denies Supreme Court of Oklahoma. pre-transfer hearing. them a my There is no doubt mind that the Feb. objectives of the order are intended for the benefit of the district par- courts and the
ties. These same laudable and desirable
objectives may be obtained in a manner *3 Gamino, Daniel J. &
Daniel J. Gamino P.C., Associates, City, appel- Oklahoma lant. Dawson, Campbell, & Merson
James W. City, appellees Diversified Oklahoma Inc., Exploration, & Diversified Oil Gas Servicing Corp., and Jim D. Brewer. Well Patton, Nelon, An- Robert D. G. Babette drews, Bixler, Davis, & Legg, Milsten Price, City, appellees USX Oklahoma Corp., and TXO Texas Oil & Gas Corp. Productions Baron; Eissenstat, Fel- D. Eric S. Robert lers, Snider, Tip- Blankenship, Bailey & appellees Ratliff pens, City, for Co., Drilling Co., and Exploration Ratliff Barton Ratliff.
SUMMERS, Justice: cer- Although arrives here on proce- complicated seemingly tiorari in a single first- resolution of posture, dural dismissed, the federal claims were of most of it. Because disposes issue impression also pendent state claims were interpretation 12 the requires our That issue filed an and on missed. Grider “savings” statute O.S.1981 § 21, 1989, the Tenth Circuit Court of March year bring an additional which allows On affirmed the dismissal. Octo- fails for reasons action after suit 2, 1989, the U.S. Court denied ber its merits. Is the 12, 1989 Grider certiorari. On October from the dismissal order period counted This again filed suit state court. suit court, urge, or as defendants facts as the was based on same set of appeal, terminal date of a federal suit. The first state suit ques- argued plaintiff? We resolve named as were same defendants were theory, plaintiffs tion favor suit, USX, the *4 federal and named the most of the trial court’s order thus reverse TOG, as owner of TXO and was added new untimely. dismissing suit as the latest defendants, appellees The a defendant. portion of the lower court’s dis- Only that here, grounds filed dismiss. As motions to remains undis- as to defendant USX missal the urged for dismissal all defendants turbed, ap- plaintiff’s and that trial claims were time-barred. The court dismissing that defen- peal as to the order granted January the motions on untimely (actually premature), dant must be dismissed. and affirmed the Court of On opinion dismissal in an the court’s Grider, City gro- Plaintiff an Oklahoma designated publication. Relying on its cer, apparently experienced unsuccess- Denton, understanding of 741 Chandler v. working a gas ful and venture as inter- oil (Okla.1987), appellate the court P.2d 855 early In the after- est owner 1980’s. Sec- held that the allowed he filed suit in state court on math Febru- began 100 the federal district tion when 22, 1985, ary alleging fraud and embezzle- action, judge dismissed the rather Explo- Ratliff ment. defendants were States Court de- United Company (REC), Drilling ration Ratliff on granted certiorari. We certiorari nied (RDC), Company Corpora- TXO Production 4, 1992, and remand May and now reverse (TXO), (TOG). tion and Texas Oil & Gas proceedings. for further We also dismiss 29, 1986, September On dismissed the appeal as to defendant USX. it prejudice without and case refiled day same in federal court. The federal First, it no let be understood that complaint was based on the same transac- one-year savings urges that the defendant as tions the state suit contained the period began September run with allegations of same fraud and embezzle- first voluntary dismissal of the case ment, allegations under well this is be filed state court. Whether Racketeering Corrupt Orga- Influenced and no named that first suit cause defendant (RICO) nizations Act and antitrust viola- run as to it believed that limitations had tions. This suit named as defendants those dismissal, prior to or because of some other action, first named in state and added reason, first court dismissal is of state Inc. Exploration Diversified Oil Gas consequence interpretation no here. Our (DOG), Servicing Corpora- Diversified Well been, is, 100 has of Section (DWS), individually tion Barton Ratliff refiling if a only affords one and one case individually. Jim Brewer All theories after limitations has run. U.S. recovery which centered on transactions Swyden, v. 53 P.2d Okl. during years through occurred (Okla.1936). opinion only This answers briefed, questions foremost of which is April one-year period On suit was dismissed whether the starts with by the federal court. As the basis for its suit at the trial dismissal of finality dismissal the federal court held that the level or with the complaint appeal. failed to RICO claim. claim Defendants
Also,
party
Both Plaintiff and
that neither
take note
we
inapplicable
Denton,
100 is
due
asserts
Chandler
that Section
dismissed case was
(Okla.1987)
position.
their
supports
fact
In Edmison v.
filed in
court.
Chandler,
upon to decide
we were called
252,
aggrieved defendant filed
questions
consider”. One of
I.
THE COMMENCEMENT
commenced
THE LIMITATION PERIOD
dismissal,
original
order of
date
OF SECTION
date
to reconsider was
on the
the motion
O.S.1991,
provides:
Title 12
one-year period
We
that the
denied.
held
the order
commenced
the date
any
“if
commenced within due
action is
*5
than
missal
rather
with the
final,
became
judgment thereon for the
time and the
original
at
863. Defen-
order.
Id.
reversed,
plaintiff
plaintiff
or
the
appeal
here
an
the first
argue
dants
that
upon
fail in
otherwise than
such action
that we
held
indicated
had
Chandler case
merits,
plaintiff
...
com-
the
the
delay
appeal
an
not
commence-
year
within
that
does
mence a new action
although
year.
the
the one
running
after
reversal or failure
ment of the
Such
the
commencing
holding,
time
the action
limit for
however.
was not the Chandler
the
expired
shall
new action
not called
to
In Chandler we were
is filed.”
delay
running
the
appeal
if an
could
decide
one-year period.
savings
The
termed
statute has been
a
filing of
permits
statute
an action
recently
has
“finality” requirement
This
after
of limitations has run.
the statute
by the Tenth Circuit Court
been discussed
Inc.,
Kelsey Hayes,
See Ross v.
Twashakarris, Inc., v. Immi-
(Okla.1991). It acts
to extend
Serv., 890
gration and Naturalization
statutorily-established
peri-
limitations
(10th Cir.1989). Plaintiffs’ first
F.2d 236
od. Id.
District
Okla-
lawsuit
the Western
by the Court without
homa was
urges that his October
Grider
filing
within the
a new com-
refiling
prejudice.
was well
than
Rather
period
by
100. He claims
allowed
Section
plaintiffs appealed
dismissal.
plaint
one-year period
begin
that the
did
to
appeal in
on
The
affirmed
dismissal was
final,
judgment
run until
became
March, 1986,
plaintiffs refiled their
and the
that it
final until the United
did not become
The
Dis-
complaint February,
denied certiorari on
Supreme
States
Court
complaint,
this second
trict Court dismissed
defendants,
The
on the
October
of limitations had
stating that the statute
hand, urge
period
that the time
be
run.
gan
the federal District
dis
Court
language
The Tenth
looked
Circuit
April
on
missed the state claims
that Sec-
our
100. It observed
Section
argument
the de
connection with
provides
where an
tion 100
two situations
only appealed
fendants claim that Grider
(1) in
year
permitted:
additional
to file is
ruling as
the federal court
RICO and
of a
the instance of reversal
urge
They
that he did not
antitrust claims.
plaintiff fails in
plaintiff
if the
appeal the federal court’s dismissal of the
merits.
an action otherwise than
claims of fraud
embezzlement.
taken).
no
has been
peal
into the
time when
questioned action fell
Although the
Price,
the word-
category, the court found
In Mabee
& Gas Co. v.
second
Oil
deciding
(1947),
first useful in
we held
period began
the com-
after
the limitations
Supreme
lodging
appeal in the
Court
an
appeal:
pletion of an
or an
a
action
does
constitute
understanding
phrase
key
con
simply
but is
original proceeding,
“ac-
We hold that an
“action.”
word
in the trial
tinuation of the suit commenced
judgment and
the initial
tion” includes
court.
suspend
validly
appeals
any
stat-
100 tracks an identical
Our Section
Thus, if a
judgment.
finality of
Kansas, originally
General Stat-
ute
otherwise
plaintiff's case were dismissed
Kansas, 1889,
Paragraph
utes
plaintiff filed
and the
the merits
Court
New
Kansas
timely
appeal or a
motion
a
Smith,
(1911)2
P. 380
an-
86 Kan.
required
appeal,
tolled the
It
question.
rejected the
swered this exact
given
an additional
would be
argument
the one
commenced
appeal motion
the time the
year from
stating:
ruling,
the lower court’s
a com-
adjudicated in which
refile
circumstances, the
these
plaint. Under
compel
appellee’s
“The
contention would
until
would continue
“action”
party
prejudiced
a
deems himself
who
interpretation com-
was resolved. This
ap-
forego
right
such an order
plements the
clause of the statute
first
generally, he
peal,
frequently, perhaps
after an
not take effect until
which does
get
hearing
cannot
thereon in the Su-
appeal.
at 237.
Id.
preme
new action
commence
that,
held
Sec-
Thus
Tenth Circuit
year.
commence a new
within one
To
validly-filed appeal
purposes,
tion 100
ap-
action in the same court without
until
would toll
limitations
*6
virtually
peal is
to submit
what
judgment
appeal
and the
be-
was resolved
regards
illegal
an
This is not
order.
came final.
that
the intent of the Code ... We hold
has
of “final”
While
definition
filing
had one
after the
the trustee
meanings in different
taken on different
in the
of
decision
contexts,1
consistently
we
held
to commence a
action.”
within which
rule
final
either
adjudication
that a
is
overwhelming majority
jurisdic
An
of
appeal
has been taken and
which no
agree
Tenth
with Kansas and the
tions
one in
an
appeal
run or
which
for
has
of
time of commencement
Circuit that the
appeal
upon by the
filed and acted
has been
judg
the date the
savings provisions
is
Derry
appellate
ex rel.
court. See State
date of
appeal,
ment is
decided
813,
P.2d
berry
516
v. Kerr-McGee
in the trial court.
Whet
determination
Plotner,
(Okla.1973);
v.
795
820
Benham
248,
Gosnell,
don his II. ABANDONMENT OF STATE *7 APPEAL
CLAIMS ON DOG, AND BREWER’S III. DWS presented next is whether The issue OF STATUTE OF DEFENSE by his state claims fail Grider abandoned LIMITATIONS appeals. them in the federal to raise DOG, DWS and Brewer assert Appellees urge The Defendants that even if the sav against them was time- filed that the action finality of the ings period starts from regardless of They assert that barred. appeal, in the appeal as to issues decided applies two-year whether this Court appeal the district did not Grider three-year period for fraud or the limitation of the state court’s dismissal “money had and re- period for limitation claims, required to and thus Grider was it ceived”, the action was barred by refiling claims within one- proceed these years after than three brought more was the federal district year of the date of Hence, they argue operative events. insists that court’s dismissal. Grider claim was time- original that because in fact appeals, did not abandon these by saved Section barred, cannot now be the Tenth appeal the issues on to raised Circuit, opinion, The Tenth Circuit. not named DOG, and Brewer were DWS pendent state recognized presence was filed fed- until the action parties the correctness claims but did not address complaint filed in The in 1986. light eral court of those claims fraudulent- alleged that DOG the decision it reached. APPEAL AS to dur- IV. ly remit revenues Grider MATURITY refused to TOG, charged ex- AND that TO TXO USX ing 1982 and DOG and that in 1984 cessive rates TOG, urge that the TXO and USX conspiracy in a with was involved DOG appeal prematurely. filed was Grider’s charge to excessive DWS Brewer trial court announced his decision The the fed- The federal court dismissed rates. January in a letter on TXO TOG a claim and eral claims for failure anything 1990. This letter did include state claims. The feder- also dismissed the 6, 1990, Later, on regarding USX. March question of not reach the al court did regard an order with court issued by claims were barred these state TXO, incorporating the Janu to TOG and limitations. the statute of time, also, ary letter. at that issued He DOG, they and Brewer assert DWS dismiss, sustaining order USX’s motion original parties not named were no reference was made to court, and that because filed in state action as to January Clearly no decision letter. in 1986 after was filed action March 1990. Gri- was made until USX run, partic- period had these the limitations petition-in-error Febru der had recovery time- are now ular theories of 15, 1990, any adjudica ary and thus before directly address barred. Grider does held tion as to USX. The Court of on the argument, but instead focuses this premature as to USX. 100’s question of commencement. Section Life, Inc. v. State Oklahomans for did not address The state trial court (Okla.1981), Fair, we dismissed, either, holding that question but of action is held that when an entire cause operative starting the Section date against parties, one of resolved several year the date of the federal 100 one final and We appealable. that resolution is district court’s dismissal. such a held that failure to final original summary judgment would in a agree that if the result We time-barred, moving party. judgment it cannot be “saved” favor of claim was 863; Chandler, supports P.2d at by Id.5 Oklahomans Section 100. Life Dist., Appeals’ petition- ruling Brown Hartshorne Public School (10th Cir.1991). regard filed with to all A claim in-error was 926 F.2d All two issues raised brought must be within defendants but USX. based fraud resolved years discovery against fraudulent other defendants were (Third); January 17. Richey the trial letter of acts. court's O.S.1991 § F.Supp. after this Westinghouse petition-in-error was filed Credit letter, pre- (W.D.Okla.1986). within the time Whether decisional but Ap- agree action We Court of brought Grider his 1986 federal scribed. ruling question. only peals’ three on this period, within or within the “money remaining against and re claim USX. recover had ceived,” (Second),4 until No was rendered as to USX *8 under Section by the trial March 6. The March 6th order does factual matter to be determined Chandler, only incorporate prior decision court on remand. Under refer to op petition- in letter. recovery arising from rendered the earlier The those theories of premature as to erative which were not time-barred in-error USX events to September judgment will sur no had been rendered as USX. when filed on appeal at as to that vive a limitations. Id. 863- The must be dismissed defense of defendant. ex rel. Trimble See State Lewis, just delay. Liberty states that However, there is no reason for 4. Nat'l Bank of Weatherford this statute was in effect at the ruling. court’s Section 1006 time to § 5. In 1991 12 O.S.1991 1006 was enacted portion inoperative renders Oklaho- now of permit judgment re- appeal from Life, supra, For referred herein. mans to against one or solves or more of the claims expressly parties judgment of more if that Moore, the record before us and has not been ruled P.2d City of (Okla.1991). by trial court. On remand Dis- make trict Court will this determination-. disagree of We with assertion plaintiffs’ appeal, the timeliness petition-in-error TXO TOG that the As to of and They reject- to make the TXO premature arguments also as them. and TOG are pre appeal was argument plaintiffs appeal brought to ed. The as them was prior it to the mature because was timely appeal in this court fashion. The which memorialized the March 6 USX, however, order of hereby as must and is be January 17. How decision trial court’s brought prema- It ordered dismissed. was ever, consistently held has this Court gave turely and no Court January effect until under the statutes judgment to disturb the favor of USX. filing 1, 1991, period petition- the time for Appeal’s opinion is The Court vacated. pro began to run when in-error The District order dismissal is Court’s Miller, Miller v. decision. nounced as reversed to all defendants over which (Okla.1983). judgment “A appellate jurisdiction. The this Court has legal life as as it begins its soon is or order matter is remanded to the District Court and is pronounced from bench proceedings for further consistent with our writing entry ever for of record reduced to here. decision P.2d at 1343.6 by Depuy, the clerk.” Here, the decision was rendered on Janu SIMMS, HARGRAVE, KAUGER ary merely directed and the trial court JJ., WATT, concur. judgment the memorialization parties. written The OPALA, J.-, concurs in result. timely as to TOG and TXO. LAVENDER, V.C.J., parts concurs 4; result to 2. concurs
CONCLUSION trigger operative date the one- HODGES, C.J., 1, 3, parts concurs savings provision 100 is of Section 4; dissents from judgment date the of dismissal became fi- OPALA, Justice, concurring in result. began to run nal. Thus on the date that the Court for the The United States District brought finality to denied certiorari and Western District re-filing action. in state court was plaintiff's and federal RICO1 [Grider’s] timely insofar as Section 100 concerned. pendent4 state- anti-trust2 counts3 and filing appealed law to the Unit- Whether the in federal court on claims.5 Grider September appli- Appeals the Tenth 1986 was under ed States Court of solely the RICO claims’ dis- cable statutes of limitations to certain Circuit from sought He later certiorari factually defendants is not ascertainable on missal.6 statute, pen- court dismissed Grider's 6. The current which was not in effect 5. The federal trial case, jurisdiction." purposes "lack of These for the of this dent claims for O.S.1991 included, alia, 990A, of state starts “the claims inter violation date contract, law, (emphasis of fidu- breach the final order or added) antitrust breach filed." ciary duty, fraud conversion. Organiza- Corrupt 1. Racketeer Influenced and According opinion of the United States Act, §§ tions 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 [RICO]. Circuit, the Tenth "Grider Court of challenge was to RICO claims' [whose sole Act, *9 2. 15 1 § The Sherman Antitrust U.S.C. et on that the not contend dismissal] does (1982). seq. claims, dismissing the antitrust erred in court argue the court abused its nor does that federal court 3. The dismissed Grider's fed- dismissing pendent claims." discretion the a eral counts for to state claim. Fed. failure Oil & [Emphasis supplied.] Grider v. Texas Gas 12(b)(6). R.Civ.P. 1147, (10th Cir.1989), n. 1 F.2d 1148 868 76, 820, claims, 107 explanation “pendent" U.S. 110 S.Ct. 4. cert. denied For the of see 493 (1989). I. Part L.Ed.2d 43 infra 788 give purely I jurisprudence, in our would Supreme Court. Unsuccessful
the U.S.
reviews,
procedural
his
prospective
application
he refiled
state-law
his federal
deni-
year
one
of certiorari’s
engraft
claims within
I
the
propose to
innovation
broadly
today
that
court holds
al. The
only
adoption.10
I hence concur
court’s
claims,
jurisdiction
dis-
timely-filed pendent
Under
today.
the result the
court reaches
by
than the merits
grounds other
missed on
espouse,
I
a
procedural standards
the
Oklahoma, may
sitting in
court
a federal
should be re-
plaintiffs state-law claims
year7
court within
in a state
refiled
having
garded as
otherwise
failed
of the
reviews”8
from the time “federal
by
are
they
on the merits when
been
court’s
U.S. district
court. Wereit not
the
district
federal
exhausted.
prospective
purely
application
separately
I
counsel
hold,
write
counsel,
I
I would
on this rec-
rule
ex-
reviews should not
pendency
ord,
limit
100
§of
refiling
one-year limit for
the dis-
tend the
by
triggered
the U.S. district court
in a state court unless the
missed claims
missal.
urged
been
had
pendent claims’ dismissal
reviews,
plaintiff
or unless the
as error
I
record-supported
convincing
show-
makes a
dichotomizing
mid-appeal
THE PRE-STATUTORY DOCTRINE
complaint
separate
into
federal-
“PENDENT” JURISDICTION GOV-
pressing the latter in
(by
claims
state-law
ERNS THE FEDERAL COURT’SDIS-
court)
have harmed the
a state
would
STATE-LAW
MISSAL OF GRIDER’S
Be-
prosecution of federal
litigation,9
CLAIMS
is
I would take
more
cause the course
case-lawdoctrine
court,
“pendent”
A
known
by
restrictive than that charted
into
jurisdiction,11
is
was later carried
I
announce
new to
and the rule would
duty
appealing party
procure
savings pro-
9.
is the
12
Section 100’s
It
§
O.S.1981 100.
only
record that is
to obtain
corrective
vision is available
to those
claims
sufficient
Chamberlin,
sought.
during
pen-
note
become
an action’s
23 at
had
barred
infra
relief
Plaintiff
Okl.,
Bond,
dency. Birmingham
v.
Fire Ins. Co.
100
§
has the burden to show that
361,
(1956).
pertinent terms
301 P.2d
363
v.
bar of limitations. Owens
tolled
108,
755,
Clark,
(1932).
§of
100 are:
6
154 Okl.
P.2d
758
time,
any action
within due
"If
is commenced
plaintiff
Okl.,
and a
thereon for
Skelly
Company,
Poafpybitty v.
Oil
394
reversed,
plaintiff
515,
such
action
(1964).
Cty.
Hale v. Bd.
P.2d
520
fail
merits,
761,
Okl.,
otherwise than
Cty.,
603 P.2d
764
Seminole
Com'rs. of
may
a new action within one
Okl.,
758,
...
commence
Etc.,
(1979);
603 P.2d
Isbell v. State
although
the reversal or
J.,
concurring).
(Opala,
failure
For recent
after
760
commencing the
the time limit for
action
given
examples
prospective application
purely
expired
shall have
action is
appellate practice,
di
which are
new rules of
[Emphasis supplied.]
statutes,
obscurely
filed.”
see
vined from
articulated
252,
Crutsinger,
Edmison v.
165 Okl.
25 P.2d
Luca, Okl.,
Company v.
823
Jaco Production
295,
1103,
(1933);
Ogle,
v.
1109
Smith
364,
(1992),
Heimbach v. Gui
P.2d
364-365
(1946).
see
v.
P.2d
But
Morris
Okl.,
ney,
Okl.,
Wise,
(1956), a
case that
Miller,
relies on Herron
makes no might dismissal, have harmed fed- nor a state action pendent claims’ related should the claims litigation22 eral state-law it is clear that an instances where for those have than at their be deemed to failed later mid-appeal state suit’s com- independent, harm, judge. plaintiff’s the federal trial mencement would not of federal claims.19 prosecution Ill
II OF THE RECORD ASSESSMENT IN PROVIDED THE SAVINGS PERIOD IN THIS CAUSE 100 FOR RECOMMENCEMENT § FAIL THAT STATE-LAW CLAIMS incomplete; before record us IS THE MERITS ORDI- DEHORS guidance parties incorporated for our nei- BY THEIR NARILY TRIGGERED federal district court’s ther the FEDERAL TRIAI^COURT DISMISS- briefs at various roll nor the submitted AL, FREES THEM FOR WHICH stages I would con- of federal reviews.23 A STATE TRIBU- RESOLUTION BY clude, assessment, that on this record’s NAL claims’ dismissal not state-law urged are error the federal reviews24 and Although periods limitation statuto- record nor the briefs before governs law their construc- neither the ry, common any light on issue of us shed the critical jurisprudence teaches tion.20 Our mid-appeal refiling begin plain- when the limitations to run have in a state court would hobbled bring the action.21 Since claims could first tiff litigation.25 brought posture Grider's his federal pendent may claims be in a state short, record tenders court court the moment a federal them, our reveals no more than that the jurisdiction over review to exercise refuses claims otherwise savings statute’s time limit must or- state-law refiled failed they were the merits when dinarily be counted claims’ dis- on from Were it Only the record demonstrates missed in the trial court. missal. federal authority not for absence of extant pendent that error claims’ dismissal a total reviews, today,261 controlling issue us urged in or that before open-ended the trial at the time its § An extension 100’s 19. length adjudication appeal. past the full of federal reviews is the considered on limit be Okl., consequence today’s pronounce- Chamberlin, inevitable v. 720 P.2d Chamberlin puts premium delay. (1986); Frey Independence ment which Fire and Casu- Co., Okl., (1985); alty 698 P.2d Eckel v. Okl., Porter, Reynolds v. 760 P.2d 819 n. Okl., Adair, (1985). 698 P.2d Okl., Lietch, (1988); Lake v. 6 (1976). P.2d Pryse Co. See Monument v. District supra note 6. See Okl, Etc., (1979). n. Const, Roy Hannaford, J. argues judicial 21. MBACommercial economy 25. While Grider Okl., strongly keeping the federal- and favored state- together law until federal reviews claims stood 22. State-court recommencement of completed, suggests he neither nor offers might during prejudi- reviews claims separation that their would demonstrate if, prosecution cial to the claims of federal litigation. his federal harmed example, closely the state-law claim is so tied to questions policy pending that another of federal gives guidance 26. The text of us no clear litigation make the federal dismis- action would savings period begins to when run in sible, were or if the federal reviews to include where those instances another forum’s dismissal questions pre-emption of state-law challenged dehors the merits is on review. Ex- claims. jurisprudence tant this court and provide Although supplement fails to a definitive rec- states solution. Grider tried to application Purely prospective appeal by incorporation should hence be ord on this of materials given adopt litigation the rule I the court from the were not counsel federal-court below, attempt today. Poafpybitty progeny, supra and its tendered to cure the record late. note came too Material deficient *12 action was would conclude Grider’s when commenced below
time-barred the federal dis-
more than one after of his
trict court’s dismissal
claims.
SUMMARY sum, today 'pronounce I would savings period may triggered
the §100 reviews either when the end of federal pendent claims’ dismissal chal-
lenged appeal and on as error both on
certiorari, error in that dismissal reviews, urged is not record-supported showing is convincing mid-appeal commencement
made that a action would have ad- state-court prosecution
versely of federal affected 1 would claims. Because course chart jurisprudence today law, I our decisional body would give pronouncement purely pro-
spective application the date man- date herein.27 issues INDEMNITY
SPECIAL Petitioner,
FUND, ARCHER, the Workers’
James J. Court,
Compensation
Respondents.
No. 77467.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Feb. progeny, supra Poajpybitty, note 10.