*1 non-conveniens should intra-state forum Diehl, v. to this case. Schwartz KENNEDY, Jr., applied Thomas and State G. Harwood v. (Okla.1977); Insurance Farm Mutual Automobile (Okla.1977); and Petitioners, 565 P.2d Company, Stores, Martin, Inc. v. Safeway v. (Okla.1974). HENDERSON, H. The Honorable William Hodges Ralph B. /s/ Judge District Court of Okla Acting Chief Justice Respondent. County, homa HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, SUMMERS, JJ., concur. DOOLIN of Oklahoma. Court C.J., OPALA, HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and July 3, 1990. KAUGER, JJ., ALMA WILSON dissent.
OPALA, V.C.J., ALMA with whom KAUGER, JJ., join, WILSON and dissenting. today applies
The court Oklahoma’s non doctrine of intrastate mon-law to command that venue of from Okla- district court case be moved County. I must recede homa to Blaine I would leave the from its order. de- tiffs choice of venue undisturbed and invoked doctrine of our unwritten clare the abrogated by recent discordant law1 lative enactments.
I. TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM HIS CHOSEN ORDER IS ESTAB- VENUE EXPLICITLY Re Original jurisdiction is assumed. BY STATUTE AND MUST LISHED Henderson, Judge of spondent, William H. BE LEFT UNDISTURBED UNLESS Oklahoma the District Court of THE PLAINTIFF’S CHOICE IS assigned judge, prohibited is any other TO BE FRAUGHT WITH FOUND v. proceeding further Deloris Poole in INFIRMI- SOME CONSTITUTIONAL Jr., Kennedy, and State Farm Thomas G. TY Company, Mutual Automobile Insurance since 1975 ex- law Legislative Court of filed in the District force ven- pressly commands the courts to treat County, except purpose cumulative. 12 O.S.1981 provisions ue transferring cause said Each statute must be ac- County. Court Blaine law,” syno whether scripta, ute in to another is a “Unwritten special.” [Emphasis nym sidered for the common law. McCormack Okla Co., Okl., Pub. 613 P.2d homa Diehl, Okl., See Schwartz 2. The terms of which became [1977]. May denotes additional reme- The term "cumulative” supplemental and not dial venue statutes are cumulative wherever "All mutually brought exclusive. cumulative they appear and action under (a) others that still remain in one added to such statute be maintained where force, effect, (c) (b) negative brought. apply stat- one that has no No court shall one venue *2 equal corded If efficacy. two or more body overruled. That of Oklahoma’s un- proper counties afford none clearly written law rests on a flawed foun- given judicial preference over another. It ignores dation. superi- hierarchical This court’s own for another ority of statutory provisions any over con- situs nugatory cannot render provi- those trary judge-fashioned legal norm and over- plaintiff sions under which the in the case looks the force of the 1975 enactment of below laid venue in § O.S.1981 141.3 The common-lawdoctrine § always Case law must legisla- bow to the non conveniens ture’s declared will that does not contra- repeal not be used any venue statute.4 vene the fundamental law of the State.7 The judiciary powerless to alter a By its enactment of 143 in § tiffs choice available venue lawmaking body explicitly trumps any ve- presence unless the of some constitutional judicial hicle for venue alteration. infirmity mandates a of the trial short, provisions, all venue which are now Only situs. impairs when venue or denies cumulative, plaintiff’s shield the statutori- that minimum of which is ly available choice judicial from interfer- due, may this court intercede invok- any ground ence on other than that which ing its fundamental authority law’s of su- is anchored in the constitution. perintendence courts, over inferior VII, upon by ferred it Art. Okl. Const.5 § II.
All extant opinions pri- that ascribe macy to intrastate jurisprudence over THE discordant statu- DOCTRINE OF INTRASTATE FO- tory provision power elevate RUM NON CONVENIENS STANDS plaintiffs over the choice venue to a ABROGATED BY 12 O.S.1981 supra-statutory 140,8 dimension must now be 1419 and 143 AND BY 12 one pre-existing rights. ty.... that does not vitiate original jurisdiction The of the Su- Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation, See In re preme general superin- Court shall extend to a Cir.1937]; People F.2d [2nd Santa Fe tending control over all inferior courts and all Ass'n., Savings Federal & Loan 28 Cal.2d Agencies, Commissions and Boards created Barboglio, and State v. law.” 63 Utah 226 P. Parr, Okl., 803-804 pertinent pro- The terms of 12 O.S.1981 141 [1974], pronounced: where this court vide: “This Court should not extend the venue stat- damages "The venue ing civil actions result- beyond utes those limitations intended operation the use or motor ve- nor, legislature, effectively should hicles, this Court resulting operation from the legislative by judicial overrule intent ... fiat. boats or other watercraft in the waters of this Nor, state, deprive plaintiff should this Court wherein the defendant or defendants legislatively granted right bring her resided in the State of Oklahoma at the time action_” be, maintain the ... injury, add- option at the plaintiffs, ed.] following: either of any county 1. In of Oklahoma where ser- pertinent provide: 7. 12 O.S.1981 2. Its vice of summons can be obtained one or provided by more of the defendants as now "The common constitu- modified law. law, judicial tional and decisions any county damages where the people, and the condition and wants part thereof were sustained. shall remain in force in aid of the ” * * * Oklahoma_” [Emphasis added.] statutes of 4. See Consolidated Flour Mills Co. Kansas v. Sayre Wholesale G. 176 Okl. pertinent provisions of 12 O.S.1981 140 781, 783 [1936]. quoted in Part II. Const., terms of Art. Okl. note 3. jurisdiction appellate “The Court shall be coextensive with the State and 10. For the text of 12 O.S.1981 see equi- shall extend all cases at law and in of 12 2004.1(E)11 The recent enactment O.S.SUPP. 2004.1(E) pow- vastly expanded the of venue should plaintiffs choice compel at trial.14 er to witness attendance rea- for an additional remain undisturbed *3 compulsory of a subpoena for attendance the doctrine of intrastate son. When fo- anywhere may served witness now be was first woven into rum non conveniens subpoe- a party’s capacity the of Oklahoma case fabric the state. A to hale within testify compelled to naed witness could be into a distant resi- court from witnesses residence, county of his trial in the only at longer regarded can as a mat- be dence county in county, the adjoining an process concern. With the of due ter prompted this served.12 What he was pillar of the main on which removal lative adopt the common law’s court to application came to doctrine’s intrastate the chiefly its application was for intrastate rested, be non conveniens must be forum stripped defendant desire not to leave the weapon a an today to defeat withheld process in those cases where compulsory of permissible adversary’s statutorily venue lay some location venue at a would lawfully exercised replace to a option and subpoena to reach that was too remote pref- the court’s own plaintiff’s choice with sought appear- for the witnesses defense legis, cessat erence.15 Cessante rations perceived rightly ance at trial.13 The court ipsa lex.16 compulso- that the want of means to secure process for the witnesses’ attendance ry impair to distant residence served from a III. for fair trial. opportunity a
the defendant’s intend- past pronouncements doubtless Our SUMMARY implement statutory command to the ed terms of in 12 found abrogation Legislature’s constitutionally articulate our this section mon-law doctrine all cases in policy that mandated “[i]n 1) 12 plain from the terms of court that appear is made to which it 143, 140, 141 and which sec- O.S.1981 §§ had in impartial trial cannot be a fair and tions, together, make the when read pending, the county the suit is the where tiff’s choice of available place change of tri- may ... the tinkering, impervious to absent yield the whose al....” Section infirmity, and constitutional some authority for a of source O.S.Supp. 12 1985 venue, is de- judicially ordered 2004.1(E), litigants seek which enable safeguard signed to the constitutional compulsory attendance of witnesses due cept fair trial and to afford Statutorily anywhere within the state. litigant trial situs of his crippled a plaintiff, once laid choosing. available adversary’s subpoena is served him be when the terms of 12 _” 2004.1(E) provide: added.] request subpoenas for Woodson, Okl., "At the P.2d 13. See Harwood v. hearing at or trial be issued Okl., attendance by a [1977]; Company v. Oil Gulf district court for the coun- the clerk of the [1972]; St. Louis-San Francisco hearing ty or trial is held. A Court, Okl., which the Railway Co. v. requiring a subpoena the attendance witness Woodson, Okl., Simpson v. hearing or trial served at a place this state." added.] within note for the terms 12 O.S. Supp.1985 repealed November See 12 O.S.1981 12. 164, 32, p. Ch. Okl.Sess.Laws Parr, provided: pertinent terms Its obliged legis, ipsa shall not be to attend 16. The maxim cessante ratione cessat "A witness a or to that rule on the trial of civil action means of common law becomes examination give deposition except application his in the inefficacious when the reason attend county county adjoining has ceased to See Cleve v. his residence exist. Craven Chemi residence, county [4th his where he cal 18 F.2d Cir.1927]. conclusively must be deemed binding upon courts, except only when that choice impair
be found to deny adversary’s an
right to the minimum standards of fairness
embodied in the Due Process Clause.
I original would assume cognizance of deny case and opinion writ
declaring the common-lawdoctrine of intra- state abrogated by *4 1975 enactment together
read with 12 O.S.1981 140 and by 12 O.S.Supp.
The doctrine relegated should now
antiquarian lore as an extinct dodo bird. CRAIN,
Raymond Petitioner, L. PUMP, Risk, Own and the
TRW/REDA Court, Compensation
Workers’
Respondents. Bell, Norman, Richard A. petitioner. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Rhodes, Jones, Hieronymus, Tucker & Deaton, Tulsa, Gable Jo Anne for re-
July spondents. HODGES, Justice. presented
One issue is in this case: knowledge whether actual of workers’ com- pensation rights tolling effects the statute of limitations’ of Okla. (1981) (repealed Stat. tit. 85 15, 1985).1 July August working while Pump (Respondent), Ray- TRW/REDA (Claimant) injured mond L. Crain fell and (1981) (re- prepared by 1. The terms of Okla.Stat. tit. the Administrator and shall be pealed 1985 Okla.Sess.Laws ch. supplied employers cost.... employer having event an notice of Every employer subject injured injury neglects to advise the em- Compensation post the Workers' Act shall ployee right to file a claim under the conspicuous places maintain in one or more Act, Compensation Workers’ the statute of employees covering rights notice limitations shall be tolled until such claim is obligations employees under the Work- filed.... Compensation ers’ Act. Such notice shall be