Harry R. Carlile Trust v. Cotton Petroleum Corp.

TRUST, Zelda HARRY R. CARLILE Trustee,

Arthurs, Plaintiff-Appellee, CORPORA-

COTTON PETROLEUM

TION, Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant, Commission,

Oklahoma

Intervenor-Appellant.

No. 61112. of Oklahoma.

Supreme Court

April April

As Corrected 5, 1986.

May

Rehearing Denied Feb. Brown,

Gordon F. Scott Boughton, D. Lockhart, City, for Brown and Oklahoma appellant Corp. Cotton Petroleum Hoover, Counsel, Gretchen Deputy Gen. Leslie Pepper, Counsel, Wilson Asst. Gen. Oklahoma City, appellant for Oklahoma Corp. Rogers, City,

Cleeta John Oklahoma appellee.

OPALA, Justice. appeal presents This for our decision questions dealing four with the standards adequate Corporation notice for Commis- sion spacing proceedings: ^[1] Is the Corpo- ration Commission called to act in an adjudicative capacity when its power drilling is invoked to establish a unit? ^[2] Commis- sion to establish a is notice to interested subject to the minimum standards of fair- ness exacted the Due Process Clause? Do the standards of due process, an- Corpo- nounced this court in Cravens v. Commission,1 govern ration when non- producing mineral alone interests sought to be embraced within a unit? Should the teaching of Cravens applied retroactively to include (the quiet-title plaintiff Carlile victorious below), purely prospectively to affect comprised non-pro- those ducing formed leaseholds which will be promulgated orders the effective date after today’s pronouncement? While we an- 613 P.2d 442 [1980]. rule,3 statute-implementing affirm- questions own first swer the three question gave hearing fourth on the ative, response we notice of (a) pronouncement is to today’s by publication spacing application solely hold that units which apply prospectively No other Oklahoma and Caddo counties. orders made by Commission be formed will hearing to the was ever sent notice relative (b) opinion, of this date effective to, by, predecessors or received Carlile’s after all by the made Commission spacing orders applica- title. heard the The Commission herein effective date prior opinion’s to this creating its order a 640-acre tion and issued the by notice stan- be left unaffected shall the drilling spacing unit which included (c) today, yet pronounced orders dards record, According the no Carlile tract. to pend- proceedings presently in to be made being produced from this gas oil and was and those in ing the Commission before immediately and at section of land before in appeal, which areas now on direct cases hearing was com- Commission the time the sought be, or production are to under menced. unit, were, spacing comprised shall within predecessors In 1978 in title4 Carlile’s by governed notice stan- regarded as oil-and-gas executed an lease that was sub- (d) the district courts dards Cravens assigned sequently to Cotton Petroleum agency invalid all facially treat Corporation delay All bonus and [Cotton]. drilling orders issued after the spacing and timely under this rentals due lease were opinion do not date of this which effective paid. drilling opera- Cotton commenced pro- notice standards comply with the by spacing tions unit the on the created nounced herein. completed order and the well within the law- involved in this party 1974 a not primary term of the lease. Its location was Corpora- to the brought application an suit the area included in the lease but outside create tion Commission [Commission] unit established the within the 640-acre several 1974 order. produced from gas gas and condensate eight years Some after of the formation sections of underlying various formations brought Carlile in 1982 this here property County. in land Caddo quiet-title against suit Cotton. The 1978 within one of included was in contention only lease the constituted interest Cotton It formed. consisted new units to be the property claimed in the Carlile sole and the simple in fee owned of land then a tract cloud Carlile remove plaintiffs, in title predecessors the By stipulation title. of the the com Arthurs, by Zelda Trust Harry R. Carlile plete the record of trustee [Carlile]. incorporated evidentiary was into the mate compliance legislative summary with the re- rial the tendered with motion for quirements pursuant judgment. then in force and clearly This record confirms 87.1(a) Okla.Sess.L.1984, O.S.Supp.1982 opinion. 2.The terms § of 52 in this addressed pertinent Okla.Sess.L.1985, part: vide in Ch. 58 1 and 141 2. § Ch. "* * * petition when such a is the filed with 12(b), 3. Rule Oklahoma Commis- Commission, give the shall Procedure, provides: sion General Rules of (15) days’ hearing least notice of the fifteen appli- “Oil and Gas Conservation: Notice of an petition publication, held such one complaint relating cation or to conservation (15) days hearing, at least fifteen to the gas published of oil and shall be one time at general newspaper in some circulation (15) days prior hearing least fifteen to the in a Oklahoma, printed City, in Oklahoma newspaper general published circulation in (15) publication, days prior one fifteen at least City, newspa- Oklahoma Oklahoma in a hearing, newspaper to the date in some per published county in each in which lands printed county, county, in each if (52 application embraced in the are located. one, there be more lands than 87.1, O.S.1971, O.S.Supp.1980, § §§ 97 and embraced within the are situ- (8-15-81)” seq.) et 287.1 [Emphasis supplied.] ated. ...” This statute was later amended in 1984 and Harry R. Carlile and Carlile were shown Zelda by changes pertinent questions to the as lessors on the 1978 lease. attempted Commission order facially no service deemed invalid no ac by publication. other than Because face of record reveals predeces to its tual notice had been absence at least one of these three title, requisite claimed the 1974 order jurisdiction— sors Carlile elements of agency i.e., (1) facially jurisdiction (2) was invalid. Based on the due parties, jur- over the Cravens, matter, (3) notice standards announced isdiction over that, power court be jurisdictional specific trial declared issue 5 cause publication notice alone insuffi question.10 was order in adjudi cient to invest the Commission with cognizance, cative order II facially ineffective. After Carlile had summary judgment, ap recovered Cotton THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF pealed and moved here for order Carlile an THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH post undertaking requiring Cotton DRILLING AND SPACING UNITS “supersedeas

the form of a bond.” IS IN ADJUDICATIVE NATURE dispos motion this court’s met with adverse AND IT IS TO FEDERAL SUBJECT ition.6 AND STATE STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS GOVERNING THE ADE-

I QUACY OF TO NOTICE CONFER THE COURT MAY DISTRICT WITH- JUDICIAL JURISDICTION HOLD LEGAL RECOGNITION applicability due of FROM A COMMISSION ORDER of notice standards to for the

THAT FACIALLY IS INVALID drilling of formation and

By its attack at turns on collateral Carlile whether Commission’s author tempted legal of ity space to effect to calls for an avoid exercise A adjudicative rulemaking 1974 order. collateral attack function. An may authority or agency’s clearly not be launched a Commission to make rules facially distinguishable adjudication. der that is The dis from invulnerable.7 that of power inquire Rulemaking power adopt trict court’s to into validi includes to regulations ty legally general applica orders is limited rules and procedural— ascertaining, inspection from an of the substantive and tion—both nature, legislative operate pro proceedings,8 face of the if the Commission which are jurisdiction general application.11 spectively had to issue the and have order.9 6. effectiveness of the cancellation decree review. State ex the trial Marshall "supersedeas McClain v. and Nicholson v. is enforcement and satisfaction of its itself of the free to invoke Cotton [1928], (2) Wilks, Okl., supersedeas, its order footnote 1 may court’s decree County, Okl. the trial Starr, 632 P.2d 759 remedies not be bond” denying supra. State, 46 50 judicial process reL Mose O.S. 1981 court’s Okl. compelled this court prescribed by into Carlile’s motion decree is not v. District Court of effect and to § 149 P. 240 150 P. 666 968 and Wilks held that: suspend law 270 (3) Carlile judgment. carrying for the [1915]; P. ^[1915] under avail 567 (1) set 9. McDaniel 8. were fined to an of the Okl., note 9 at 379. tion troleum [1981]; [1983]; The district Gulfstream application, the Com'n, notified 653 requisite Woods Corp. Layden, Chancellor v. Tenneco P.2d inspection and the Commission’s order. court’s Petroleum Moyer, jurisdictional Petroleum process by 206 inquiry Okl., [1982]; Okl., Corp. Corp. v. 662 elements into proceedings; State v. Gulfstream P.2d Layden, supra P.2d Sledge, Company, presence Corpora- con- i.e., 312 379 Pe- 7. Art. 9 Section "No collateral orders, sion_” rules and provides Okl.Const. and 52 attack regulations pertinent part: shall be O.S.1981 allowed Commis- § guished P.2d enship State ex (syllabus Freeman, Okl., rel. Villines v. adjudicative 10) legislative In State ex facts Freeman, Okl., facts in these rel. were distin G.T. Blank words: body follows the adju- administrative are law APA of an exclud- Orders They apply to in character. requirement dicative ing from the filing those all specific situations and named truly adjudi- actions that are opera- rather than future have immediate cative in character.18 tion.12 legal Three distinct issues and conse- legislative acts in a ca- The Commission quences implicated proceeding pacity rulemaking it exercises its (1) establish units: an area of the prevent protect waste and to powers to supply common source of must be deter- rights, attempts but not when it correlative identified; (2) mined and its boundaries rules. The apply these royalties within the established unit stand found constitutes an rules to the facts ex- pooled formation; as a result of the unit’s adjudicative function.13 ercise of an When (3) a restriction on the freedom to drill legislative capacity, the acting in its Com- imposed.19 must be Because clear- always may amend its rules and mission ly finding calls for a factual affects prevent protect waste and to regulations to proprietary owners.14 But incidents of the mineral estate rights of mineral because character, adjudicative they every orders are brought owner with- showing amended absent a not be quest new we conclude that a changed adjudica- The same conditions.15 for the formation of tion/rulemaking dichotomy governs the adjudication unit calls for rather than whether, determining process of under the rulemaking. [APA],16 Procedures Administrative Act adjudi- When the Commission acts in an act of the Commission constitutes a rule capacity cative it functions much like a requirement Act’s an or- general court. The norms of law which requirements. free from those der which is govern quality of notice that must be generally the Commission is not While sub- given proceedings conducted ject provisions except to the of the APA— apply tribunals with like force and effect to the section mandates that state the Commission.20 agencies rulemaking powers cop- file The minimum norms of regulations17 ies of their rules and federal and state due hence must —settled Commission, Okl., applied Corporation "Facts to which the law is to be Co. v. 482 P.2d adjudication [1971], process facts; adjudicative of are called 609-610 parties’ these are facts ‘about the and proof, must be ascertained from formal as dis- seq. 16. 75 O.S.1981 301 et §§ tinguished ‘legislative gen- facts’ which are may judicially legisla- eral and be noticed from 17. § 75 O.S.1981 304 and C.F. Braun & Co. v. purpose tive source materials for the mining of deter- Commission, Okl., Corporation 609 P.2d effect, meaning, validity content or 1273 [1980]. of enactments.” Freeman, 18. supra State ex rel. Villines v. note Freeman, supra 12. State rel. Villines v. ex note Corporation 11 at 310 and Cameron v. Commis- Blankenship 11 at and State ex G.T. 310 rel. v. sion, supra note 15 at 271. Freeman, supra note 11 at 747. 15. Cameron v. 13. H.F. waste of crude sources of waste of natural rules and and tion Okl., Okl., 52 O.S.1981 86.4 19 P.2d May Commission, Okl., P.2d Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Petroleum supply), regulations), P.2d § oil). Corporation 348 gas) 97§ v. [1933]; Hatpin Corpora- (rules governing 575 P.2d Corp. 717 [1983]. § 243 (jurisdiction § Commission, Old., Phillips Com’n (prevention State, (prevention v. of 111 Petroleum common to make State of of of 19. 52 within a well drilled in violation of the note 9 ing rects that unit, §§ 287.1 Gulfstream tion Monson of a well at another location or Commission, Okl., pools royalty interests within the O.S.Supp.1982 specific et only Petroleum seq. State ex rel. Oklahoma one well be location and A § Corp. 87.1 and drilled in the unit prohibits order creates the Layden, supra 52 O.S.1981 operating Corpora- the drill- 841-842 order. di- statutory the standards notice to govern The norm presently in proceedings.21 provides force that give spacing proceedings

notice of its solely publication.22 Cravens23 we held that Ill statutorily-prescribed notice form in is CRAVENS THE STANDARDS OF NO- adequate producing holders of —vis-a-vis IN TICE MUST GOVERN PRO- mineral whose interests identities were CEEDINGS FOR FORMATION OF known or could have been ascertained with DRILLING AND UNIT SPACING TO diligence due meet the minimum due —to BE COMPRISED OF NON-PRODUC- process standards laid down in ING LEASEHOLDS Socony Mobil Co.24 and Mullane significant Because inter property Central Hanover Bank & No Trust Co.25 affected of a ests are when formation less than these notice standards —later im sought, unit is interest plemented by Rule 1626—is exacted constitutionally are to no owners entitled law’s protection fundamental shield of reasonably ap proceedings tice which calculated to establish prise proceedings them of conducted. to be which are to embrace non-producing 25. 339 21. C.F.Braun & Co. v. judicial and other official the ly 314, ing sion of the court said that before to the gent search of all available 94 L.Ed. must court indicated that due property element al cumstances" directories, city directories own L.1984, Ch. 58 unchanged by the 1984 amendment. Okl.Sess. supra see, cise least known or could be ascertained owners 80-acre tract ment to be 1(e). requirement. give In action is 70 S.Ct. at 657. pooled. interpose 1, a search of local non-producing publication Cravens v. differs § note 17 at likely publication process All these notice U.S. supra Allied due the mineral 87.1(a). of due “reasonably interests, and afford them an mineral 306, 318-320, diligence. to affect unit which was with note 2 for the text of 52 by publication 875-876 Chemical their 1.§ apprise notice Union Texas 1273; notice The pooling applicant a interests whose addresses are mineral interests notice to interested producing gas objections. lessees 80 acres constitutionally protected calculated, [1950]. Notice 718 [1968]. them of the as 811-812 Wolfenbarger tax requirements Corporation Corpora- only, a well as a diligence requires he O.S.Supp.1982 and the and mail rolls, plaintiff records, S.Ct. Commission, to consist a 160-acre Petroleum, must opportunity is When through resources. Id., notice under deed well. fundamental Commission, pendency jurisdiction- make a dili- has like. In of another may 339 U.S. at a v. Hennes telephone O.S.Supp. were establish, proceed- 659-660, the exer- records, of their require- to those all cir- parties a Divi- resort time- duty 87.- left of at 26. Rule Johnson v. ed in the by publication. A trial vide Archon Oil After an standard igence that the made a able sources when default tice is process require exercised over may isdiction ed sures ion Texas also tion 385 and 388 directly 1 and 16 is found at property which accords with the minimum standards tensive with hearing of due our Our Const., er inquiry interests, [1977]. Drilling knowledge Application be taken that must Ch. hearing Application own, requires given. due diligent plaintiff process. recitation has 2, App., provides Petroleum, is of conducting conform McDaniel, Okl., Co., Inc., process to determine whether the journal Rules adversely Co. a [1982], against its federal little value definitional notice that is calculated to be followed before a person search of all and Matter L.Ed.2d 78 O.S.Supp.1984 2004(C)(3)(e). opportunity [1979]. did in fact exercise due dil minimum standards of due a evidence, Egbert, to that effect is to be includ State Tubbs, Old., clause in Art. 2 § that to the Tubbs, entry Before supra, infra cert. a defendant proposed affect his District tribunal must conduct legal counterpart. meaningful The denied, note counterpart unless measure of fairness Oklahoma, Okl., supra. of judgment Cravens, jurisdiction may sweep [1982] and Cate of if the reasonably process latter, procedural judgment. Courts, Rich, 29 at exercise of legally protect adequate served that is coex- heard. Un judge and hence judgment is search, 1356; affecting McKeev- plaintiff of right 12 O.S. sought. 7, solely avail finds mea Rule 980- pro Okl. jur See no see a notice is deemed to be a constitutional mineral interests. Notice these latter prerequisite only comply every proceeding must not with provide statutory standards but also affect- person’s liberty property either a or affects are ed whose whereabouts known terests.29 in knowledge ascertainable publication Because resort to ser pending proceeding. constitutionally permissible only is vice reasonably notice is not cal Publication giving when all other means of notice are provide knowledge actual of in culated unavailable, face today we hold that the of proceedings. stituted It is hence inade proceeding an administrative must affirma to inform those who quate as a method tively diligent unsuccessful ef show a but could be notified more effective means party by fort to reach the affected better personal service or mailed notice.27 such short, pre may courts process.30 inexpensive and more Mail service is an far publication sume service alone to be con mechanism to enhance the reliabil efficient stitutionally judgment valid publication posti ity of notice than either pro roll or record an administrative ng.28 party’s When a name and address of ceeding means show that reasonably ascertainable from sources fails imparting diligently better notice were hand, communication mail available pursued proved but unavailable. means certain to insure actual or other Tubbs, Application supra note 25 at 385 U.S. remand, [1983], [Nev.1984], and 388. on 683 P.2d 20 applied the Mennonite notice standards were creditor, probate to a case where an identified Lindsey, 28. Greene v. known, whose whereabouts were had been L.Ed.2d 258-259 Greene, solely by publication. notified Continental posting the Court held that a summons teaching pub- apartment reaffirms the constitutional the door of a tenant’s an providing notice inadequate lication a last resort device which means of notice of forc- impossible entry be used when it is ible and detainer. See also The Postman ascertain, hand, Rings Constitutionality Twice: The Ser- from available sources at ei- Never by Posting identity per- vice Process Greene v. Lind- ther the or the whereabouts of The American After University sey, adversely L.Rev. 601-641 sons who will be affected judicial proceeding. outcome 29. Mennonite Board Missions v. Archon Oil because it involves a Notice Under publishing U.S. mortgagee’s ment of taxes was not the of its constitutional safeguard notice. Court said notice to the that a tax sale was meet the due notify Buffalo L.Rev. 389-415 nonite Board Missions the Court lane to tax sale legally protected property Nev. In Continental Insurance Co. the Mullane landowners, Mennonite its interests does not relieve the state imposed that notice The Court held in Mennonite that a knowledge 653 P.2d 158 mortgagor by Co., Inc., of the process rationale, a proceedings, New York Rem party’s ability pending of the tax represents major 2706, 2711-2712, 77 mortgagees, and obligation requirement standards of notice. The infra v. Adams: certified mail did not and that [1982], vacated, delinquency equivalent In interest.” See Men- application note 42 at 1356. a sale and but also because note See to take v. on a state to give Adams, Moseley, posting Statutes, also Cate v. "those Insufficient extension of notice steps L.Ed.2d mailing of Mul- mailed pay- to 30.At proper solely mission found that meaningful those entitled to notice but who were served ly by publication and Commission well officials of an affidavit for ascertain examination tion, which reflects the whereabouts are unknown for service of igence, mission into the cess and cannot be ascertained with due dil- sources at hand to ascertain the whereabouts of into the factual issue of due should include A supra. den er than on the Commission. See ing application. like the Commission found the (b) procedure notice-giving publication. minimum, search of all of the whereabouts of adjudicative (a) sufficiency identity should In record falls well its officials conducted those an (c) filing by order that be on the and reasonably adjudicative inquiry inquiry spacing procedures a recitation in diligence, publication followed of the search to proof applicant footnote 22 served sole- in a the Com- the Com- available upon publica- the bur- service whose to be pool- rath- an imposed IV on the legal pro- administration of cess increased volume curative THE STANDARDS OF NOTICE PRO- juridical action. NOUNCED TODAY SHALL APPLY precludes adjudi- Cravens an exercise of THAT ONLY TO SPACING UNITS powers by cative agency administrative WILL BE FORMED BY ORDERS production over whose interests THE MADE AFTER EFFECTIVE directly adversely be affected un- DATE THIS OF OPINION diligent less a effort give has been made to (a) We must our next determine whether timely personal is reasonably notice which today pronouncement should full be calculated inform of an them instituted effect, not, (b) retroactive and if new proceeding. pronouncement Our here ex- purely prospective rule should allowed a spac- tends the Cravens notice standards to (c) retroactivity should be ing proceedings affecting non-producing at limited to the case hand. significantly, More today’s leaseholds. opinion holds that those Commission orders pro- which fail show on the face of the ceedings diligent give effort to a better OF THE RULE RETROACTIVITY NEW by publication notice than are facially de- VIS-A-VIS SPACING UNITS pronounced by fective. new norms us BY MADE BE- FORMED ORDERS represent here a clear break with a con- FORE THE DATE OF EFFECTIVE trary statutory policy long standing. TODAY’S PRONOUNCEMENT Spacing applicants yore order could have States nei United Constitution justifiably validity relied on leg- prohibits requires ther nor that a islatively-prescribed procedural norms fol- retrospective operation.31 decision have lowed sanctioned Retroactivity is the common-law’stradition by enactments which have been continuous- approach implementing al decisions that ly in force several decades. policy overrule law. de case Judicial whether, extent, pronounce today termines and to what a Were we to that Cra- new rule operate retroactively.32 previous will retroactive on vens had effect all Thompson Presbyterian Hospital, spacing units, orders established Inc.,33 comprised the court addressed the non-producing whether withholding leaseholds, holding used in retroactivity producing when a our would new rule pronounced. impact constitutional have an the administra- adverse There, tripartite adjudication we used test of Link- tion of the Commission’s It letter Walker.34 calls for considera cess. would result in It blanket invalida- (1) purpose tion of three factors: All proceedings. tion of countless rule; (2) new existing the extent of reliance on orders made under doctrine; (3) likely provisions old the burden at once would fall as 34. 33. Refining L.Ed.2d 601 [1965]. rel. Okl infra 1020 [1985]. 1737 and Great Thompson Presbyterian Hospital, 404 U.S. at 77 L.Ed. 360 note 652 P.2d at Dept. 260, Northern Chevron Oil 106-107, Transp., [1932]; U.S. at Ry. 268, supra Co. Co. v. 92 S.Ct. at 355. 364-365, Linkletter v. 628-629, Huson, Griggs note 32. Sunburst v. State ex infra Inc., Okl., 1738, Walker, Oil & 1017, new rule new rule establishes a consider three factors when retroactive not ation of the new ment is consistent with the injustice dence active [1971], the Court 106-107, give Chevron clearly application of the retroactive or in a or foreshadowed; application Oil Co. U.S. hardship. federal civil case: held that federal rule; will advance Supreme prospective new Huson, Today’s pronounce- necessary (b) Court. deciding (c) current principle or whether retro- whether non- (a) courts retard effect to a whether a jurispru- to avoid whether of law oper- must of the consti- drilling and shadowed.”37 The resolution

void. A multitude in this case not tutional issue reached was no doubt be af- would units in Oklahoma clearly foreshadowed either by produc- Oil-and-gas leases held fected. Bomford38 pronouncement the much later within the unit but located tion from wells Bomford, Cravens. addressed itself which premises would be demised outside the ju- procedure to be followed before short, a cancellation. threatened with dicial jurisdiction39 may be exercised retrospective full pronouncement with against solely by publication, one served destablilizing have a scope doubtless would agency practice by its left unaffected industry-wide activities.35 effect on case, Cravens dealt teachings. Unlike this narrowly and on direct review B proceeding publication effect of notice in a BE GIVEN RULE SHOULD THE NEW production in which an area under was APPLICATION PROSPECTIVE incorporated to be unit non-producing lease- reliance on the old to be formed with extent of holds. Cravens did explicitly not decide lengthy history as a factor has a doctrine its effect was limited to the suc- prospective application for a whether supportive of considering litigant therein or inquiry, cessful would have rule.36 The new sweep. signal Another factor, phrased fully retroactive is often the reliance distinction to notice is that Cravens was a law-changing the new terms of whether appeal direct pronounced we no- past precedent” “clear decision overrules inadequate left impression by publication tice un- an issue of first or addresses here, precisely us “clearly fore- settled the issue before resolution was whose 35. 36. with a but left upset by on the Commission’s decision. The set in the tive posed the state. requirement. See quences on receive active L.J. 647 [1969]. tion Supporters III of the A prospective cized as an when it case. See the and, spective court does decide a case tivity: Critique See Cravens, purely law case-or-controversy controversy and settled appeal in the Federal Application Note, at the same claim to an election after the timely 1603-1604 944-950 [1962] unsettled, a retroactive Overruling pooling Significant hardships prospective supra applies Beytagh, Ten Years of Non-Retroac- U.S. Constitution. oil-and-gas Prospective from the Commission. notice. manner. The advisory opinion which violates instant case is a collateral attack pure prospectivity would have far applied note based on property Cipriano in Federal order because of failure and a time, pronounce a new rule the effective the new [1975]; spacing order. Courts, supra at There we did not decision has been criti- imposition and cases cited therein. in the future to a like leaseholds unlike Overruling Proposal, requirement Retroactive the old rule of law interests would Currier, rule in a court can decide controversy Courts, City reaching See, Note, Pro- reach of that would believe 61 Va.L.Rev. throughout case, Its retroac- and Retro- Time and time limit in Article 23 L.Ed. 930-933. Applica- 71 Yale Houma, It dealt discuss, be im- purely conse- that a even new App. Laws Rules for District tion" in the Restatement is cise courts. cated. supra pectivity and the painless norm of law. Harv.L.Rev. doctrine, advocacy of a new Opponents of have no reason for because no benefit will change relief and will Overruling, Forward: The Change 333-334 [1970]. Bomford, supra Chevron Oil Co. v. 26 in which reference is made Rights §§ Mishkin, judicial jurisdiction See also Restatement supra Mullamud, Prospective note 35. See Id. at 24 et only "judicial jurisdiction” was its ushering Due Process of Time and it is at times an often deters those note 24. 51 Va.L.Rev. position. Judge-Made seq. pure prospectivity argue perpetuate an outmoded High Cipriano v. Accused, Courts, note 24 at 718. Supreme in of comment Mullamud, supra rule, Court, Huson, supra note 34. persuading Although pure pros- essential device for a 56 Iowa L.Rev. limited to the exer- most Law: "Judicial Jurisdic- Court, a state derived sharply (2d) The Great O.S.1981, who most need City (d), p. Limitation and 216-234 litigants Prospective Conflict of a court to Rule through See from the different Law, Houma, Ch. Term- impli- Writ, legal that, will collateral i.e., attack. posture the Commission order in the of a whether The attack collateral facially in a invalid distinction we make here between direct apparent on it is not the face appeals when challenges collateral finds am- proceeding person administrative ple support in federal jurisprudence.46 notice-giving entity charged with exer- Supreme given purely pro- U.S. Court has diligent give personal cised a effort no- spective application to new constitutional parties. tice to the affected in upon rules collateral attacks state crimi- convictions, resting nal upon its decisions Snethen v. is different This case finality consideration of the Farmers Okl. State Union Ed. & process. instances, In most the interest in Co-op. By Through Unah Unah U.,40 reducing controversy judgment to a final v. Cate v. Archon Oil Martin,41 Inc.,42 Vanderpool outweighs competing readju- v. interest of Cravens44 State,43 Cartwright dicating rel. judgments according State ex settled to le- Dunbar,45 gal winning party effect when a all of which the received the collateral victory. Society attack is fruits of its The cited cases were made. has an interest appeal; direct finality reached on this one comes of decisions rendered under ac- 40. 42. 43. 41. tional fendant in applying it to cases 381 U.S. Court addressed "the effect of the tacked is spective invalidity.’ ...” S.Ct. spectively. on direct the new rule and cases like Linkletter which letter. The Court sought collateral review. The Court held that 531. ^[1961] Ohio, 367 U.S. Louisiana, Arizona, tained tively. Under Court was whether the rights are violated when his confession —ob- S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 378 defendant’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment (b)In Okl., Okl., Okl., (a) exclusionary exclusionary at ruling In Linkletter v. 1736. The Court felt that the 676 P.2d 664 P.2d at Solem final appeal Mapp L.Ed.2d 38 to be 636-640, —refused 470 U.S. note 1. judgments rule would not be furthered the benefit of the new constitu- police-instigated the issue of subsequent rule to the defendant in Link- Court— which received the benefit of the Edwards 1352, 1366, 1153, to no set applied retroactively 377, distinguished 81 S.Ct. Stumes, already 85 S.Ct. at should be to extend the 1356 [1985]. 1157 [1983]. Walker, supra despite giving Id., 914 [1980]. rule finalized. the issue ‘principle of ruling ^[1984] 381 U.S. at whether rule applied in Edwards 1741-1743, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 collaterally between cases U.S. interrogation and Shea v. privilege 38 ALR4th purpose before invalidity Mapp criminal retroac- the de- retro- 1069- at- factor under Solem is the extent of the re- tion that had become final —the Court held when defendant’s Edwards rule was held to present federal collateral attack liance old standards. 465 U.S. at of a conviction that has become final. There he tack. See tive to all cases in which the should not be that the rule announced in tinction between view of appeal 667, 675-679, that the law has overriding constitutional rules (c) Justice Harlan was of the view that new the federal wards was decided. The Court created a dis- attack ought necessarily L.Ed.2d 404 [1971] gest that civil and criminal collateral attack unthinkable. He collateral attacks on final rect Court was for obvious difference when the strates its disputes Kirchberg statute (d) 1341. In Solem, supra, Recent appeal." See Shea v. —is as a had not rather in which the pending note 4. over law enforcement pointed Shea, conviction and interest of Mackey use of limited system. used. problem quite Feenstra, Id., retroactivity 91 S.Ct. than yet applied retroactively. supra, criminal cases noted, always perceived retroactivity 401 U.S. at requested 104 S.Ct. at 1345-1346—a out that in civil cases the constitutionality Louisiana, supra, been v. United But should (Harlan, J., concurring). is confined to those collateral society 67 L.Ed.2d 428 [1981]. challenge precisely congruent 105 S.Ct. at certainly 1160, 1171-1173, completed ”[t]his retroactivity on collateral attack apply retroactively judgments authorities different from di- in a collateral at- be made retroac- 643, counsel was not Edwards, supra, States, plea a state convic- on direct re- is not to 455, 462-463, finality attack. See but saw an is made it illustrates before the 91 S.Ct. at of a state when Ed- collateral 1070, of direct 105 S.Ct. 401 U.S. S.Ct. demon- almost on the made civil sug- key at dispute lease in and, and in

cepted judicial by terms, standards the conser- its the expense. lease was expressly subject to all time and This vation of made adjudication stability insures in method of existing regulations.”47 “administrative in judicial system. parties Cases which the objective giving The a purely new rule by seek the of new rules a collat- benefit prospective protect is to the challenge likely impose eral are more a public’s expectations reasonable of reliance greater hardship on administration prior judicial on decisions. Because there legal process. in Evidence records old ample is avoiding sig here reason for cases deteriorate or lost. become hardships imposed nificant that would if be provide Other considerations also clear given this decision were eff retroactive support purely prospective application for a ect,48 (a) today’s pronounce we hold that new constitutional in this case. rule apply ment is to prospectively today operate announced does not here to units which by will be formed prior pursued condemn a course of conduct orders opin the effective date of this after Rather, by private party-litigant. a it cor- all ion, (b) by orders made agency process long rects a defective to the effective date of standing which had received extended and opinion this by shall be left unaffected certain sanction. The constitu- notice pronounced today, (c) tionally infirm order in contention yet orders in proceedings pres be made procured caused be here was not nor ently pending before the Commission and procured anyone in privi- the lessee or in cases now on appeal, in which Rather, ty offending with it. order production areas under existence, be, are agency on file at the and its was were, comprised ac- or within a constructively, at least was known cepted regarded shall parties governed by all when Carlile’s notice predecessor in title executed the mineral standards announced in Cravens.49 47. The lease terms where given revenue bonds full retroactive effect. The Court noted that municipal inequitable “cities, bondholders, and others connected with hardship” by purely prospective holding. law which violative of the “significant hardships" right Court— A new rule given purely prospective application land v. Louisiana State aminers, L.Ed.2d 440 the result of compliance Regulation. ed in whole or in State “ * * * ulations, and this lease shall not be terminat- this U.S. at ample precedent damages, to vote in elections to Cipriano City full retroactive lease shall holding that the new rule would not be Laws, had a mistaken view as to the All decision utilities” if the decision were results if gave only property taxpayers affecting express Executive for failure to * Equal any prevented by, by municipal utility. * *" might produce such part, provide applied retroactively, Protection Clause a civil effect— The Court held would be Orders, Houma, avoiding "injustice Board, implied nor lessee held liable Law, Order, comply approve procedure to all Federal and in or such failure is emphasized Rules and pertinent part: the Court held covenants of imposed therewith, Medical Ex- issuance of substantial meaning was also that the Rule or there Eng- state Reg- if 49.We which a direct pending cation of the Cravens notice standards are cases Doctrine "As Corr, Retroactivity: eral 751-752 [1983]. tion. See Hankerson v. North for intermediate transactions.’ for itself between the may say operation and that of relation backward. though guage: adherence to In [1932], expressing 358, 364, erated its commitment ed view of the law. Co. v. Sunburst ing reasonably court and of one of its earlier decisions but face of attacks; Wainwright 38 L.Ed.2d 179 order in the trial or later support given “'A state that decisions of its commentators, saved Applied," overruled, embracing extending retroactivity precedent may challenge may S.Ct. & by today’s opinion Stone, relying upon it in the Study their view the lower 61 N.Carol.L.Rev. defining Refining are law none the less principle to Great Northern R. appellate process areas under 414 U.S. Carolina, parties Supreme the Court reit- make a choice ” be made to a following highest 77 L.Ed. 360 their the limits of of forward that, for to collat- were act- 287 U.S. misguid- produc- 94 S.Ct. court, Court appli- lan- It Moreover, were alone allowed to date opinion Carlile shall effective today’s victory, harvest fruits be left unaffected the notice standards efficacy impressed mixed status would be pronounced today; yet but orders drilling unit here in and proceedings presently made in pending be- apparent its contest. Because of constitu- fore the Commission in and cases now on defect, the order under tional appeal, which areas under challenge would before us fall as void be, were, duction com- single as it affects a insofar interest —the . prised unit, within shall be re- oil-and-gas litigation. leasehold this garded governed as notice standards regime by this clouded established Cravens; announced the district courts order would nonetheless remain invulnera- facially henceforth treat as invalid all every to attack against ble other lessee agency orders issued after the effective within the same even one with opinion, they date of this unless comply as infirm that of interest Cotton. with the notice pronounced here- Providing tangible Carlile with a benefit in; mandate shall issue herein ten days triumph clearly forensic would disposition after the court’s of rehearing, symmetry stability harm both the and sought, if rehearing no thirty then rights property settled under the exist- days opinion promul- after this been has ing policy against rules.50 Sound militates gated. cloaking today’s retroactivity decision with JUDGMENT REVERSED. limited to Carlile’s leasehold. The course be chosen is hard- that will avoid SIMMS, C.J., HODGES, ship persons mis- all who had acted in HARGRAVE, JJ., LAVENDER and long-fol- validity taken reliance on the of a concur. lowed, statutorily-sanctioned proce- rule of dure.51 SUMMERS, JJ., KAUGER and concur The trial court’s decree lease cancella- part part. dissent in reversed; stan- accordingly

tion the new WILSON, J., dissents. pronounced today for dards a constitution- ally adequate notice interested KAUGER, Justice, whom, SUM- in, or by, affected Justice, MERS, dissenting join, only to the to establish units shall completely prospective application of the prospectively that operate opinion. formed will be Commission orders after opinion; spac- effective Neither United Constitution date of all States ing orders made the Commission State of nor the Constitution Okla- Co., [1965]; Socony supra v. Mobil Oil note & Trust Co. American-First Title v. Ew Okl., 488, [1965]; ing, 24 at 718. 403 P.2d 496 Irwin v. Irwin, Okl., 931, [1965]; Hughes 433 P.2d v. 934 35, Houma, Cipriano City v. 395 787, Woodward, Okl., City 457 P.2d 790 706, at 1900. For Oklahoma U.S. [1969]; Okl., Corp., Kirkland v. Motors General purely-prospective-operation cases used the 1353, [1974]; Gooden, 521 P.2d 1368 Brickner v. rule, announcing approach in a new see Harness Okl., 632, [1974]; City P.2d 525 638 Elk v. 147, 285, Myers, P. v. 143 Okl. 288 289-290 Okl., Johnson, 1215, [1975]; 537 1217 P.2d Keel [1930]; County Lodge City Queen Oklahoma Co., Okl., 153, [1976]; v. MFA Ins. 553 P.2d 159 131, 340, 197,1.O.O.F., Okl. 156 P.2d 358 No. 195 554, Okl., Bradford, [1980]; Scott v. 606 P.2d 559 [1945]; Phillips University, Gibson v. Okl. 195 County Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Oklahoma 456, 901, [1945]; Equali- 158 P.2d Board 903 915, Bd., Okl., [1980]; 921 Excise 618 P.2d Wil Ass’n., Pythian v. Tulsa Benev. Okl. 195 zation Okl., Grant, sey, Co. v. 632 P.2d Bennett 386 [1945]; Yarbrough 158 P.2d 906 Ass'n, Nigh, Inc. Comm., and Oklahoma Ed. [1981] Okl., Okla. Tax 193 P.2d Annot., See [1948], aff’d., also U.S. 1765; Barby, Prospective Operation L.Ed. of Overrul 92 616, Curtis Retroactive [1961]; Co., Decision, Poafpybitty Shelly ing 10 A.L.R.3d [1964]; Fidelity-Phenix Penick, Okl., Fire Ins. Co. v. the effective date of

homa delineate and left unaffected unprotected appellate pipeline.5 opinions. Subject exceptions, to limited de- given retrospective cisions were effect at However,

common law.1 the doctrine Supreme

enunciated the United States

Court in Northern R. Great Co. v. Sun- burst Oil & Ref.

S.Ct. 77 L.Ed. 85 A.L.R. 254 (1932) broadly juris- endorses variations in Mary SMITH, surviving spouse Ann philosophy involving retrospective tic Smith, deceased, Charles Scott prospective decisions. Appellant, My that there concern is be some consist- ency predictability rulings. in our UNIVERSITY, corpo ORAL ROBERTS years, Within the last two numerous cases ration; Directory Associates, Ltd., Co., including Inc., v. Archon Oil Cate partnership; City Tulsa, limited (Okl.1985); Vanderpool municipal corporation; and Eleanor State, (Okl.1983); 672 P.2d Davis, Appellees. L. Snethen v. Oklahoma State Union No. 62785. Cooperative Farmers Educational America, (Okl. Union Supreme Court of Oklahoma. 1983), each, promulgated. have been Dec. the decision was effect in the immedi- case, Rehearing ate As Modified on prospectively to all other Feb. cases, after either the issuance of the man-

date, or on a date certain. alleged distinctions between collat-

eral and direct do not attacks necessitate a

different treatment than that accorded to appellants2

recent successful because the

judgment was void ab If a deci- initio.3 foreshadowed,

sion adequately has been case,4 holding

has the in the benefits of

the new rule should not be withheld from prevailing party similarly should —nor litigants properly pre- situated who have appeal bypassed,

served the issue on Neil, 505, 507, (Okl. 1. Robinson v. Socony 409 U.S. 93 S.Ct. 440 P.2d 713 876, 877, (1973). 1968) years ago. L.Ed.2d 29 was decided 17 Louisiana, years, party 2. Within the last three no has been 5. Shea v. 470 U.S. victory. (1985); appellate denied the fruits of the United States v. Johnson, (1982); States, Hill, (Okl. Mackey L.Ed.2d 202 United Pointer v. 667, 675, 1975); Emery Goff, (1971). (1947). L.Ed.2d A.L.R. 457

Case Details

Case Name: Harry R. Carlile Trust v. Cotton Petroleum Corp.

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: May 5, 1986

Citation: 732 P.2d 438

Docket Number: 61112

Court Abbreviation: Okla.