Rodgers v. Higgins

Betty James G. RODGERS Rodgers, Appellants,

J. HIGGINS, M.D.; Cardiology

James R.

Tulsa, Inc.; Hood, M.D.; R. John Gas

troenterology Specialists, Inc., an Okla Corporation, Appellees,

homa Hospital,

Saint Francis an Oklahoma

Corporation, Defendant. 79,454.

No.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April April

As Corrected

Rehearing April Dismissed Jr., Inc., Sellers, Sellers, “Bill”

W.C. W.C. Sapulpa, appellants. Best,

Joseph Joseph Sharp, M. A. John Sullivan, Sullivan, H.T. L. Daniel S. Kevin Ward, Best, Grundy, Sharp, M. Hol- Karen den, Stritzke, Tulsa, appel- Sheridan & lees.

OPALA, Justice. The single issue for our decision is wheth- er the in this judg- action common-law became “filed by ment” in 990A [12 O.S.1991] sense operation 696.1]. of 12 696.11 [§ We answer in the and dismiss affirmative untimely. THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION Rodgers [Rodgers] brought a James G. against physicians common-law claim two employers defendants]2 or [doctors their injury by bodily caused a tainted blood transfusion, “Type from which he contracted Although in hepatitis,3 C” a fatal disease. single urged support Rodgers of his claim4 recovery, the alternative theories of several on trial court confined the case submission negligence. Rodg- but one of them —that of Her ers’ wife sued for loss of consortium. pressed by the claim derivative of that was Both claims went to the same husband.5 jury concurrently. verdict favor of all Its ju- accepted below without defendants6 — by the dicial reservation7 —was received Warranty explaining text "a. 1. See Part II for the that the entry judgment Misrepresentation clerk’s in a common-law action b. Fraud general jury verdict transmutes c. Failure to obtain informed consent by operation into the the verdict law Corporate liability.” d. "filed judgment" O.S.1991] in the 990A sense. [12 696.1; Company Jaco 12 O.S.1991 Production society, means loss of "Loss of consortium” 5. Luca, Okl., perti- 823 P.2d 364 affection, conjugal fellowship. assistance and nent text of 990A is set out (5th 1979). infra ed. Dictionary Black’s Law provide: of 12 O.S.1991 terms had, by jury judgment “When trial has been that a verdict 6. The trial court instructed conformity must be entered the clerk in to the against Higgins against Dr. Hood would Dr. or verdict, special, the court unless it or order against respective employers. abe decision their argument the case for future reserved Tulsa, Gastroenterology Cardiology of Inc. or [Emphasis provided.] consideration.” Specialists, Inc. Rodgers Hospital, sued 2. The also Saint Francis which was from the case before trial dismissed acceptance” "Unreserved follows party appeal. and is not a to this on a court’s reserve failure step statutory It is verdict. the first “Type hepatitis C” is also called "non-A/non-B process by verdict is transmuted hepatitis.” process 696.1. The into a force of completed when the clerk February pretrial order stands 4. The lists files grounds and enters in the record plaintiffs recovery as the court's as: 6,1992 clerk on March teachings and became the “filed Company Jaco Production judgment” by operation of A 696.1.8 me- Luca,10 judicially which holds that a unre- proceedings morialization of that led to the served verdict —entered the clerk verdict, including presubmis- the trial court’s in a common-law action —becomes transmut- ruling sion plaintiffs’ which confined the ed into a eo instante force filed single theory negligence, claims to the O.S.1991 696.1.11 incorporated journal entry in a filed March Rodgers’ petition 1992.9 The in error Rodgers argue the verdict did not 17, 1992, April came here on thirty less than resolve all the issues because the district days journal entry’s the March 26 fil- after court had “sustained demurrer ing, thirty days but more than defendants’ after ” to the evidence on some of the “claims.” clerk’s March 6 record conformity with the verdict. The is They would have us treat each of their multi- fraught jurisdictional hence with a in- fatal ple recovery alternative theories as a dis- firmity. (or tinct separable cause action as a ).12 According claim Rodgers, I judgment was entered until the trial court THE GENERAL UNRESERVED JURY jury’s memorialized both the verdict and its VERDICT, RATHER THAN THE presubmission ruling single journal in the TRIAL COURT’S PRESUBMISSION of March THE RULING ON APPLICABLE RECOVERY, THEORY OF DIS- jurisprudence Oklahoma utilizes the POSED THE OF RODGERS’ approach

CLAIMS transactional for its definition of a “cause of action.”14 Although different theo- appeal’s The doctors seek this dismissal for They urge untimeliness. apply us to the proper. explanation, For a full see statutory Part II and Defendants taxable costs herein ex- Appendix showing succeeding steps. pended_" [Emphasis provided.] the Jaco, supra note 1 at 364. 696.1, 8. For the supra terms of see note 1. 11. For the supra terms of see note 1. entry provides pertinent The March part: Rodgers 12. The have cast the trial court's mid- 6th, "... completed On March Plaintiffs their ruling sustaining in terms of an order " evidence and rested and the Defendants inter- "warranty "demurrer” on the claim and on the posed warranty demurrers on the claim which misrepresentation They "fraud and claim." state sustained; misrepresenta- was on the and fraud that "the Court directed a verdict on the issue of sustained; tion claim which was on the consor- warranty” appellants get jury and that did not overruled; tium claim which was and the in- trial on “three their causes action." The of consent claim which was overruled. Rodgers theory recovery not formed The Defendants confuse a proceeded put action,” to on evidence they with a "cause of also intermix the and being rested on March 6th. There no jury trial court's failure to instruct the on an rebuttal, the liability theory Court instructed alternative the and clos- with its "direction of a ing arguments by verdict.” The were made record shows both sides. After that the trial court deliberation, any did not direct a open due verdict in the returned into defendant’s favor. Rather, (10) it let the decide person court whether the signed with their ten defen- negligent, (10) dants were hut withheld the by jurors. triers ten The Court examined the from unsupported consideration the theories deemed attorneys verdict forms as well as the [sic] and plaintiffs' proof. the See note 24. being request poll jury, there the infra the accepted Court reviewedand the verdict in favor entry, 13. For the terms of the March 26 see Defendants. ORDERED, IT IS note 9. THEREFORE ADJUDGED Defendants, AND DECREED the Court that M.D., Tulsa, Higgins, Cardiology James R. damages 14. When a claim arises one from Inc., Hood, M.D., John R. and Gastroenterolo- transaction, plaintiff occurrence or affords Inc., gy Specialists, have in their single but a cause action. See Eason Oil Co. v. Plaintiffs, against Okl., favor and James G. Engineering, Howard 672 n. Rodgers Betty Rodgers, Denton, Okl., and J. and for the Chandler v. grounds In law liability support of all his asserted may pressed in ent.16

ríes of be claim, can only single cause of action than nothing more three distinct each constitute ordinarily predicated one occurrence De recovery.17 theories and alternative single offending event transaction.15 “demurred” to the evidence at the fendants (husband) Rodgers complains is the case; they proof of the contended the close pathogenic blood His evidence any against support insufficient to claim was transfusion. hospitalized when shows that he them, especially founded on breach of one colonoscopy, pre- Dr. Hood recommended warranty misrepresentation. or on fraud and procedure According to blood transfusion. trial court ruled the facts warranted objected Rodgers, questioned when and he the submission on a want-of-due-care claim’s necessity, physi- told him the its Dr. Hood (a) ory plaintiffs’ allegations that of the Later, try do without it. cians would accurately completely did and doctors him Dr. brought blood and told nurse Rodgers from the inform about risks Rodgers Dr. Higgins had ordered it. told n blood (b) transfusion, as a of their result (1) about the Higgins that he was concerned objection he his omission withdrew (2) Arkansas, who and his brother blood (c) procedure’s later suffered execution type, could had the same blood be summoned short, injury. nisi bodily In critical quantity. the needed at once donate prius ruling mid-trial withheld submis (1) as- Rodgers Higgins Dr. testified that theories tendered sion two three necessary him it was not for his broth- sured (1) (2) warranty plaintiffs: breach (2) blood, “just- repeated er to donate misrepresentation.18 fraud and don’t-worry-about-it” phrase or four three plaintiff A “everything him will be who states a claim times and told Although signature appears Rodgers’ proves any fine.” facts entitled to relief af trans- authorizing law;19 on a consent form for pleader not cor fordable need fusion, A signing he does it. not remember identify theory rectly any applicable of recove procedure began after few months the he jury ry.20 charge The trial must the court symptoms later of a liver disease exhibit legal all the the evidence tenders?21 on issues diagnosed hepatitis. case, In trial court ruled the evi this the theory for on the of dence called instructions pretrial Rodgers At identified what and of consor negligence on the wife’s loss his action” he called “claims” or “causes of Plaintiffs’-pressed submission (2) tium. (1) misrepresentation, fraud as: and of (3) rejected as un on other theories was claim warranty of breach of and execution proof. his cons warranted their blood transfusion without informed 100, 855, (1987); distinguished we a "cause action” from v. Cable Tele- of 862-863 Reams Tulsa Inc., Okl., 373, (1979); "theory recovery." of P.2d 374-376 604 vision. 966, Co., Okl., v. P.2d Halliburton 572 Retherford ruling presubmission prius the nisi 18. In his (1978). 968-969 dealing recognized theo- judge that he was with Okl., Slusher, claims; recovery separate Silver v. 15. See in this connection than with ries rather of 878, denied, (1989), stated, initially legal theory 493 770 P.2d 882 n. 11 cert. "[a]s he of 70, [negligence], recovery 110 107 L.Ed.2d 37 U.S. S.Ct. based on informed consent supra Rodgers’ note 4 theories of recov then See for there's of fact ...” and I think an issue by saying ery. parties' terminology lapsed into the re- would the demurrers” with that he "sustain Rodgers' arguments, supra note see 16. For of war- spect to a of action” breach “cause misrepresentation. [Emphasis ranty, fraud and 12. provided.] Echeverria, Okl., v. 744 P.2d 17. See Holbert (1987), separately plead plaintiff where the 962 Chandler, n. supra 741 P.2d at 862 note 19. " contract, (2) (1) fraud breach of ed "claims Co., 13; Royalty Okl. Oil Co. v. Texas 192 Doss (3) misrepresentation of the and violation and 939 recognized Act. We there Consumer Protection ” Doss, 881; "claims three distinct and alterna Silver, these as but supra 770 P.2d at note separate recovery theories rather than as tive supra P.2d at 939. note of the action. This causes mischaracterization of of Okl., Goodson, Chevrolet, Bradley Chan Inc. claims is true here. See also ories as dler, also 862-863, where, Vogel Rushing, Okl. at P.2d 277, statute, savings applying the in finally prius disposed each of of Nisi instruct them —were refusal jury recovery on theories single alternative jury verdict. of distinguishable from an order that sustains a ruling court’s The district mid-trial support demurrer to the evidence aof represent appealable does an order be cause action a claim. If the trial or (1) judgment; post-verdict does it leave ruling nor presubmission court’s had withheld fore Rodgers’ either his wife’s claim in issues to be resolved. Had this case been or (2) entirety or from timely any withholding severed claims appealed, error in defendants, against four some of the jury’s rejected consideration the from might disposi- verdict not have been plaintiffs’ theories and breach fraud tive of all the issues this common-law clearly warranty, properly preserved, if adjudication action.22 An multiple all would have been reviewable rights claims and the settlement of the and entered force of parties liabilities all the to those claims is verdict.25 appealable qua sine non of an event unless express [judicial] there be “an [earlier] deter II just mination that there is no reason for delay appeal]” and express [of an “an di A judgm rection for the [immediate] ent.”23 in this case did not APPEAL TIME IN A COMMON-LAW any leave issue claim undecided. ACTION TRIGGERED BY THE IS (1) began Rodg- When the trial of this case TRIAL COURT’S UNRESERVED AC- ers had ex damages but one claim delicto for A CEPTANCE OF GENERAL defendants, against joint- four all answerable AND THE JURY VERDICT CLERK’S ly severally single his wife had a ENTRY OF JUDGMENT THE INTO against parties claim four the same for her PROPER, RECORD WHICH TASK Rodgers’ loss of consortium. Both IS BY NECESSARILY PRECEDED against claims went to the all FILING the case.24 Its verdict four defendants short, In “A all the is the determination of favors final defendants. Rodgers rights demands the ever parties had —one claim in an action.”27 Tulsa, Inc., pressed multiple Higgins, Cardiology Issues M.D. at interrelated claims evidence, or parties cannot be deemed involving multiple the close of Plaintiff’s on the issue of “finally" decided until all of the issues stand express Although warranty.” the breach of war- pro- § 12 resolved. The terms of 1006 O.S.1991 ranty theory may only against have been asserted vide: Higgins employer, Dr. and his the case went to pre- "When is one more than claim jury theory negligence against for relief the on a all four sented an ... in action or when multiple par- i.e., judge the trial did not direct a defendants — involved, may prep- court the direct the ties are against any merely verdict the He defendants. of judgment aration a final and of as to one proof ruled that the in the adduced case did not or more but than all the claims or fewer of jury warrant its to the submission on the two parties only express upon determination an that recovery. withheld theories of just delay and an there is no reason express filing judgment. the direction for of In ruling 25. A trial court’s that withholds from sub- the absence of such determination and di- grounds recovery legally inap- mission of deemed rection, decision, any or other order form of plicable unsupported by proof ap- or the is not designated, adjudicates however fewer "final,” pealable error, as preserved rights but may than all the or the claims and liabilities if parties appeal judgment be reviewed in from of fewer than all the shall not an the terminate any parties, the action postjudgment timely as to claims or the case or from denial of a Hess, Okl., and the order or other form of decision is new trial motion. Schepp 770 P.2d v. subject any judg- time revision at the 36 2n. before adjudicating rights ment the all claims and the parties and liabilities all the is with the of filed 26. For the definition of "unreserved acceptance," [Emphasis provided.] court clerk." supra note 7. see 1006, supra § 23. See 12 O.S.1991 note 22. § 27. See 12 Rodgers urges "the court erred in direct- ing a verdict in of Defendants favor James R.

405 statutory pro- judgment Specific provisions control the entry clerk’s of into the record general transforming a unreserved cess of proper31 entry necessarily pre which is —an jury filing. in a action into a verdict common-law These acts by ceded the verdict’s judgment. The provide: § by of 696.1 into terms transmute the verdict 696.1 force of legal had, by jury equivalent judgment the has been “When of filed judgment must the prevailing party be entered clerk in the 990A The is sense.32 verdict, conformity spe- entry to the judgment hence in his unless is entitled of cial, or the court order the case to be day the the verdict is returned favor reservation,33

reserved for future argument or accepted consider- and without [Emphasis provided.] ation.” must The dissenters concede unequivocally

Recent case law28 judgment the general unre provisions that under 12 O.S. teaches of by operation is rendered 990A], served 990A29 together verdict [§ read with law, but also that under 696.1 696.1, judg specific terms of time be at once entered the clerk must general ment common-law30 actions decided judicial (1) imprimatur. without Yet, judge’s after a triggered by failure verdict (withhold) uniformity supply “reserve” vain search for that would 1; Jaco, meaning entry judg- Within 32.1 note McGinnis v. supra Republic- Okl., ment in sense means inclusion Company, Underwriters Insurance (1992); Homes, Inc., Peabody verdict in No. v. Gem the court's "rec- 79,358 9, 1992); proper," (unpublished synonymous order of June ord a term which with The 79,120 (un- Johnston, “judgment No. See Bank "common-law record" roll.” Woodward v. Okl., 22, 1992); Messenger Messenger, published P.2d order 79,503 v. of June v. Moss Okl., (1992); Davis, July Armstrong, (unpublished No. order of n. v. Veiser 80,055 1992); Coats, (unpub- Pipe No. n. Manning Mid-Continent Line v. 12, 1992); Bd., County 194 Okl. lished order Oct. Antiquary Co. v. Seminole Excise 79,220 (unpublished No. Grady Kelley, order of 26, 1992); 79,781 statutory (unpub- roll’s definition has re- Oct. No. Knight, Lee v. 14, 1992); years. mained for over 100 For an order of the same lished December Brown v. roll, 79,598 Co., No. extensive discussion of the its his- Firestone Tire & Rubber elements, 11, 1993); tory, (unpublished January see A. A Treatise Day order of Freeman, 80,088 (5th §§ ed. (unpub- 175-193 Laundry, No. C & Judgments G Muetzel d/b/a the Law of 1925). 25, 1993); Chanie, order of lished Jan. Shade v. 80,408 1, 1993). (unpublished Feb. No. order of provides a keep 32. Section 696.1 mechanism to if becoming verdict from provide 29. The terms 12 O.S.1991 990A legal questions. there be unresolved Transmuta- pertinent part: prevented tion into cannot be silence; judicial only by it can be done an Supreme may "A. An Court judge explicitly who reserves act by filing petition commenced in error with affirmative (withholds) verdict’s immediate as a Supreme the Clerk of the Court within thirty terms of judgment. For the see (30) days judg- order the date final note 1. filed_” [Emphasis provided.] ment is meaning complete § This 696.1 is in accord 33. of 2, 19, Const., preserves § Art. Okl. inviolate jurisprudence that Fed. with federal construes right according by jury, to trial to the the course K.G., Burney R.Civ.P. 717 See v. Intermare common law. The dichotomous division of 793, (M.D.Fla.1988), aff'd., F.Supp. 798 886 decision-making regime "eq- our into "law” and Cir.1989). (11th 1323 With the enactment F.2d process constitutionally uity" mandated rather 58, Congress approach an of Rule chose similar artificially spawned by than this case. One of § adopted to that in to clerk to enable the simply suggesting the dissents is incorrect in that judgment upon general a verdict without enter dichotomy by law/equity the is not sanctioned the court. Under federal specific direction from our fundamental law. procedure judgment must be on a set forth by separate prepared which is document provide § 32.1 31. The terms of O.S.1991 in 12 the court parties. clerk rather than part: pertinent “designed § like our 696.1 —is Federal law —much petition, speed formulating encourage up all in “The record shall made reasonable return, process, pleadings subsequent entering judgment the thereto, when the case has been and verdicts, orders, Advisory Note to reports, judgments, Committee's decided." See 58, 649, proceedings of Rule 31 F.R.D. and the 1963 Amendment and all material acts [Emphasis provided.] court....” commanded, trigger regime an identical time for three unequivocally distinct That as mechanisms, case-deciding the dissents suc today, it does that on these ver abandoning fidelity legis ceed to the judicial dicts be entered without intervent ion.,38 § history lative 696.1 and to that statute’s § The judges resurrected 696 makes by making entry text the clerk’s powerless change general a unreserved (which presupposes filing) except by ineffective verdict39 vacation40 and trial new trigger appeal judge-signed until time process.41 journal entry placed By record. sheer judicial the dissents would resurrect a fiat B legislature scheme the threw out when it repealed Judgments Appeals and Act 1, 1991).34 passed (effective January WHEN THE REEN- LEGISLATURE provisions repealed § The of the 1001A35 § § ACTED as 696.1 AND required separate every judg document for 990A,42 § ADOPTED IT KNEW THE ment and those of 1001C36 mandated the JUDICIAL THAT GLOSS HAD BEEN prepare sign court to and CAST UPON UNRESERVED AC- verdict and then deliver it to after CEPTANCE OF A GENERAL JURY filing. legislature the court clerk The for VERDICT AND A UPON CLERK’S clearly requirements eliminated those two MANDATORY DUTY TO ENTER

when it reenacted the then-defunct 696 as OF MATTERS RECORD WITHOUT very 696.1.37 It is this reenactment JUDICIAL IMPRIMATUR pre-1991 procedural regime revived the judgments in legislature common-law actions When the restores verba by general statutes, decided previously verdict. tim enacted pre- it is Act, Judgments Hale, Appeals 34. A "new” prius system, and the nisi see Sir Matthew The 1, 1991, January went into effect (the was re- History Common England of the Law of 1, 1991, pealed on June 1991. Okla.Sess.Laws c. 1971) University Chicago Press and Sir Wil- 251, 22, 1, eff. June 1991. The short-lived Act Holdsworth, History liam Searle 278, A English Law alia, repealed, §§ had inter 696 and 697. See (7th 1966); Curzon, ed. see also L.B. 251, 20, Okla.Sess.Laws c. eff. Jan. English Legal History 172 1991. In 1991 the cited sections were reinstated legislature entirety abrogated pre- §§ Our their 696.1 and at statehood the 697.1. Okla. existing §§ by allowing general Sess.Laws c. 6 and eff. June common law unre- judg- served verdicts to become transmuted into judicial ments and law without inter- force of (re- O.S.Supp.1990 § 35. The terms of 12 1001 A early repudiation vention. Oklahoma's 1991, 251, 22, pealed by Okla.Sess.Laws c. eff. practice required judicial common-law im- 1, 1991) June were: primatur today. for verdicts is in full force "Every judgment sepa- shall be set forth aon Jaco, recently applied 696.1 command was " * * * rate document. jurisprudence, note 1. For other extant see supra note 28. pertinent O.S.Supp.1990 36. terms of 12 (repealed § 251, 1001 C Okla.Sess.Laws c. 1, 1991) eff. June were: principle firmly 39. “There is no law more estab- promptly prepare sign "The trial court shall lished than that the must follow [general] deliver it to the court clerk [in verdict a common-law conform action].” jury.... Co., Eagle Mfg. Smith 25 Okl. after forms in subsection E of this section shall be P. preparing judgment.” [Emphasis used in provided.] 82; 40. See 12 O.S.1991 infra §§ seq. adopted 37. Section 1031 et 696 is a time-tested rule at statehood from the New York Field Code of 1848. 651; § 41. See 12 O.S.1991 see also 12 O.S.1991 698, § note 79. infra 38. At immediately common law did not rendition a verdict. A central court follow of Bench, §§ sitting 42. The terms [King's of 696.1 and 990A both en banc at became Westminster 1, provisions § effective Exchequer] June 1991. The Common Pleas or the would of 696.1 order § to be entered on a follow verbatim those in verdict. J. Koffler former 696. The sec- Reppy, language exactly and A. today tion's is the same as it was Common Pleading Handbook of Law 303, (1969). § explanation 565-566 For an at statehood.

407 to vailing party. It is too valuable adopt their and to to be familiar with sumed suffer by judicial abrogation judicial case-law construction.43 extant fiat. upon unreserved gloss that had been cast judg- verdict is that acceptance general of a Francisco Walker v. St. Louis-San law, hold, must the verdict

ment By. as one dissent seems Co.49does force of follow been memori- though might counsel, not have judicial required even that action journal.44 and entered on the court’s general alized a effect after Rather, § revi- well known to the 696 jury accepted. That lore was has been verdict judge authority to vers. that a has Walker teaches verdict prejudgment interest add is not inconsis applicable.50 Walker where amendatory adoption of an act teaching appeal that time in with Jaco’s tent change the legislative intent to law indicates runs the clerk’s a common-law action easily legislature could then in force.45 The general unre entry judgment upon the § requirements 1001 that have retained the verdict. served separate every judgment be contained judge-signed memori- and that a document46 general verd legislature charged

alization be filed after must ict,47 procedure if was indeed meant to knowledge this that matters to be “entered with appeal If a triggering incorporated for time. into the be essential the clerk” are to be non, journal entry qua § proper” was to be sine 82.1 sense51 and “record repealed those legislature entry.52 would not have precede Before that must § 1969, 696’s com requirements prerequi nor reenacted notice of when judgment.48 review,53 the clerk’s appellate mand the court clerk site for Jaco, duty restoration as mandatory decided after 696’s to “enter notice had a 696.1, jurispru requirement remains true to our extant appeal” and there was declaring unre be contained in dence filed notice intention to judg entry,54 “duty any journal the court’s The clerk’s served verdict becomes entry” by incorporat judicial accomplished intervention. Section was held ment without proper55 i.e., ing the record right pre- the notice into represents a restored 696.1 — 548, Pierce, Okl., supra 48. See note 1. 506 P.2d 553-554 43. Horath v. (1973). statutory are Our canons of construction jurisprudence. 1A with national in accord (1983). Suth Okl., 672, 673-74 49. 671 P.2d (1985 Statutory Revi Construction erland Estate, sion, ed.), citing 162 In re 4th Swartz's nothing judge to for the A verdict that leaves 50.. 46, 896, 902 (1937). Mise. 294 N.Y.S. simple arithmetic is a do but Gizzi, 69, governed note 564 696.1. infra Okl., 1009, King, v. 404 P.2d 1014 44. See Austin at 1013. P.2d (1965); Broughton, Peoples Co-Op. v. Electric 229, 850, (1942); 853 Arka 191 Okl. 127 P.2d 44, 1014; Austin, supra Little 404 P.2d at note McBroom, Company v. 526 nsasLouisiana Gas 628, Co., Casualty Employer's Okl. 509, (approved pub (Okl.App.1974) P.2d 687, (1937); Hopkins, 97 Okl. Callander v. 12, 1974); Grzys Sept. v. Connecticut lication 41, 672, (1924). 222 P. Co., 198 A. 123 Conn. entry presupposes explanation that 52. For the fil- 30, Okl., Conservancy District No. 45. Letteer v. part. ing, see this infra P. McDe Tom 800-801 Bennett, Okl., mott, 569-70 Inc. given appeal could be intent to 53. Notice of jurisprudence in accord. National open court rendition 22.30, citing after supra 43 at note See Sutherland, days writing of that event. See within ten Stamford, City 107 Conn. v. Town Stamford (repealed by Okla.Sess.Laws A. 894-95 13, 1969). 4,§ Jan. c. eff. repealed pertinent terms of the For Little, supra 71 P.2d at 688. note 1001A, supra note 35. see Jaco, 696.1; repealed 55. See 12 O.S.1991 pertinent terms of the 47. For 1001C, P.2d at 364. 823 § note 36. see 408 by making part judgment Although “filing” “entry” it a the roll.56 and are of

Contrary suggestion, synonymous, to a dissent’s concepts record the two are close entry judgment by ly is never may only interwoven.59 The clerk “enter” of effected posted appearance minute on already Filing clerk’s the that which is “on file.”60 of Entry accomplished by judgment simply docket.57 is the delivery the refers to its incorporation entry clerk’s the preservation.61 Every verdict into the the clerk for and purely entry roll58 —a preceded by filing— ministerial act document’s is its (1) § entry docket,62 696.1 transmutes the whether the be made on a force of (2) judgment. journal,63 verdict into a on the court’s or into the filed 61. See Nat. Bank v. 60. The terms of 25 of the cases cited in the teach dissents None 59. 58. At common law the Okl. 22 P. wherever it sive and inconsistent acts. We must hence latter given the same definition word or nent perpetuam that court’s writing the “on 78 Okl. After the clerk. 12 O.S.1991 term was carried over to describe the content of roll of action's of court See vide in 12 O.S.1991 than stract of latter is the court’s supra, City is not a shall contain a provided.] order or brought ments and orders enter all actions in the order which “On the McCullough Callander, file" "filing” appearance medium part paper replaced parchment 1332, in 12 O.S.1991 requires parchment upon 71 P.2d at 688 note 51. chronological medium, Okl., Guthrie, pertinent part: termination the roll was proceedings phrase part be "entered." significant meaning permanent rei memoriam ... applicable 1335 appearance occurs_” 97 P. 190 P. supra, through (1915), of the court's [including] that certain instruments give “[w]henever is defined in the roll fell into (1981). docket § “entering" Safeway Lowenstein, only very 23, the word 222 courtroom events record would be entered. On an index Covington citing rendered...." to the same word or which it which the critical official docket [the clerk] shall the court. An abstract brief P. at 673 note 32.1; “judgment (in The abstract an [Emphasis provided.] Stores, Inc., Okl., nothing terms of which required § provide infra perpetual memory). are which it has been appearance “entry" description Pettis v. any filings in speaks. memorial 52 Okl. 861, mutually disuse, aas meaning note 63. The statute, deposited more or less roll” was a to be 863 and an ab- [Emphasis Johnston, The in roll. Little, 51; universal Elliott v. all they already but Fisher, and the phrase kept by (1986). docket stages exclu- perti- such judg- aof case. pro- 626 are in 63. At one time failure to enter a 62. The terms of 12 O.S.1991 22 that a docket until it has unless it has that no same those on the requirements entered on the Okl., Cockrell v. not a valid and contained in the its A ments and orders must be entered on the of the court....” terms of 12 O.S.1961 the court's Sess.Laws 207, 1071, transferred to the pearance § § execution docket and a lien phasis provided.] as and ment docket such other records ordered 1977 141.1 1981 26 102, “the clerk Implicit provided.] the relief ments the clerk of the district court in civil cases ... shall be 2. All instruments entered on Justice “Upon The court clerk is 142, 142 predecessors requirement § judgment may signature presently reasoning firmly supports § § § duty journal. Cumby which was amended in 1977. The clerk's 3, 3, provide Ex Jackson, docket, eff. Oct. eff. Nov. 1971, Schmitt, granted (repealed by the terms of which are identical to parte judgment except file: the court journal journal roll nor Vinzant the district court shall first keep (added were journal, in 12 O.S.1991 24. The terms c. 245 then a n Stevenson, can be entered on the proving judgment by writing copies county been a mechanic's lien pertinent part: 1, 1977). or order made.” first record 20 Okl. be neither judgment signed by incorporated 1, affected its and in filed posted files of provided judge as longer required v. State Ex Rel. docket, 1988) Okla.Sess.Laws filed Okla.Sess.Laws required by been 701 (1970). Later, § 3, required by § in clerk required that bear in the case journal. eff. Oct. 207, between the 20 Okl. (repealed by in the case. ^[*] filed incorporated § and 42 O.S.1971 24 is the notion that "[a]ll following the conclusion judgment upon journal, 94 P. specify clearly validity. clerk, into 12 O.S. freed 42 to be in the case. 1, provide ^[*] appearance law." journal keep See 12 O.S. 549, [Emphasis O.S.Supp. 1971) 521, 701, Vinzant, us journal but not 1988, 1977, keep kept by may journal parties. an docu- 94 P. judge 701's Okla. judg- judg- [Em- into 523 was that ap- an c. c. short, meaning placed by “entry" pre act.67 The Jaco on judgment roll.64 In each § is consistent with the le supposes “filing.” 696.1 an earlier irrefutable today’s regime gal verity procedural general jury differently treats verdicts68 that, sum, § In 696.1 commands (or advisory69 special that are those acceptance general a verdict’s without by the those which are ordered “reserved” reservation, the clerk the verdict in mustie court).70 class, judgment former de For the it in the roll. the case and enter (one cursu71 entered the clerk without did in the case us. The This the clerk before intervention) norm, judicial prescribed is the require meeting a law does not verdict journal judicial action via a while antecedent judge- § in a 696.1 standards be contained judgment in entry required to effect a journal entry signed its transmutation before latter instance.72 judgment.65 not read into into We should the law that which is not there. require judge-signed jour- If we were to a general

nal for transformation of a judgment,” into a “filed unreserved verdict C given clear com- effect could not be § § 697.1.73 Rath- mands both 696.1 and MEANING JACO PLACES THE ON er, jury general verdict would § AND EF- 696.1 GIVES FORCE exactly special be treated the same as ver- RELATED FECT TO STATUTES AS In those that have been reserved. dicts and WELL; IT WITH IS CONSISTENT words, the court would have to “order other THE THAT THE LEG- PRINCIPLE by signed entered”74 [to] be [the] ISLATURE IS NEVER PRESUMED it, journal entry. As the dissents would have A AND USELESS ACT TO DO VAIN legislature’s return to the time-tested (now 696.1) § § portions § of 696 would be The relevant 696.1 as command if ignored. must stand we are well as all enactments on related matters vain and Jaco §§ give full to and 697.1 together give force force both 696.1 must be considered proce- legislature’s most recent legislature to all them66 The and to the and effect design triggering appeal time.75 presumed and useless dural never to do vain Const.; Gizzi, Okl., roll, 15, explanation Okl. 564 P.2d Smith v. 64. For the see su- (1977). pra notes 31 and 62. with 12 O.S. 12 O.S.1991 696.1 Compare 70. 1014; Austin, at 65. note 404 P.2d supra Cal 1991 697.1. 673; Little, lander, supra supra note 222 P. at note 71 P.2d at 688. Latin 71. A literal translation of the words de is “of course.” See Chamberlin v. Cham cursu berlin, Okl., 801 P.2d Clifton, 66. Clifton Okl., 720 P.2d 726 n. 25 In Alcoholic Bev. Ledbetter v. Oklahoma context 696.1 course" means that in "of Okl., Enforcement, Laws general action on a unre common-law summarily by jury verdict is entered served any act a clerk and without anteced ministerial Cannon, Okl., 531 n. 4 67. Farris judicial party's request. ent action or provide: 72. The terms of 12 Const., By Art. Okl. the command of “Where the verdict is or where there special, jury return a shall all trials “[i]n special finding particular ques- has been verdict,” may direct in its discretion but the court fact, or where the court has ordered the tions of [Emphasis findings. make special reserved, shall order what case to be provided.] [Emphasis provided.] shall be entered." note 72. supra 73. For the terms of see wholly determinative of is not If the verdict recovery right, special. it is An addition 697.1, supra 74. See findings rob a verdict special will not of fact either as a attribute if finds 990A, note 29. 75. See Art. plaintiff or the defendant. favor teachings D The fears that Jaco’s dissents’ appeals will result wholesale dismissal of is THERE BE CAN ONLY ONE JUDGMENT authority applies only in unfounded. Jaco’s A UPON SINGLE CAUSE OF AC- cases, litigant a narrow subclass of where the TION;76 AN TO AVOID ABSURD defeated a unreserved ver- RESULT, THE THE JUDGMENT appeals directly judgment dict from the with- ENTER CLERK MUST WITHOUT bringing timely out first a new trial motion.80 JUDICIAL IMPRIMATUR UNDER Absurdity would doubtless flow from the THE OF THE RE- COMMAND suggestion only judge-signed dissents’ that a § BE THE STORED 696.1 MUST proceedings trig- can memorialization ALL JUDGMENT FOR PURPOSES ger appeal time this common-law action. 696.1 must be construed in a rea Section Although might tempting there be a allure in sonable and sensible manner that avoids an uniformity hope the illusion the dissents When, here, absurd result.77 a about, bring to we would be robbed the verdict is returned on March present conceptual symmetry law’s 6, judgment ap- both executable and is appeal makes time’s coincide commencement pealable by the at must be entered clerk judgment with the time a becomes executable at same time. The winner once becomes temporal point and also with the at which judgment creditor entitled to issue execution. postjudgment begins gen- interest to run. A judgment If the loser —now debtor —wants to eral unreserved verdict that is transmuted immediately, appeal counting he must start judgment by § into the command 696.1 thirty. stay If to the loser wants to execu judgment an becomes executable when the postpone appeal trigger, tion or to time’s support entry upon verdict is It will filed. counting he must ten. start to This is so judgment docket once a 25.1 affidavit81 trial,78 a because motion for new which sus yield is also Were we to to the dis- filed. time, pends running appeal counsel, only must lip be sents and to their service days filed within ten paid verdict is would be the notion to that there can be after Counting judgment rendered.79 upon single the verdict one a cause from clearly unique concept not a novel nor a action. The dissents would create several tracks, parallel resulting our law. judgment each in a Tidwell, Okl., quent ruling by 76. F.D.I.C. v. to the the trial court on the ” * * * [Emphasis pro- motion a new trial. for vided.] State, Okl., Authority 77. Grand Dam River See authorities note 79. Tubescope Compa P.2d AMF pertinent 81.The Hatchel, Okl., terms of 12 O.S.1991 ny v. P.2d are: pertinent The 78. terms of 12 O.S.1991 653 are: judgment kept "A. The docket shall be in the trial, made, duty application "... form of an index ... and it be the [T]he for a new shall if immediately days the clerk must be filed rendition within ten after after judgment filing, by party [Emphasis provid- ... and the whom is rendered....” for rendered, judgment judg- an ed.] affidavit of judgment ment ... to enter on said docket a 9; Schepp, supra 770 P.2d at 37 n. containing parties, statement the names of the Inc., Okl., Salyer Convoy, v. National Trailer judgment the amount and nature of the 1363 n. 5 costs, and the date of its rendition and the date judgment on which said is entered on said of a motion for new trial extends [Emphasis provided.] docket....” appeal pertinent time. The terms of 12 O.S.1991 Until flat for the fees clerk’s services were § 991 are: provisions introduced right party perfect per-item "The of a an the clerk collected each fee for performed, including docketing judg- ... of the trial court to the Su- service it preme upon recording any shall not be conditioned his ment and Court instrument. See 28 O.S. having (repealed by filed in the trial court a motion for a 1961 31 122, OHa.Sess.Laws c. trial, 27, 1967). April Today new but in the event a motion a new eff. the clerk for party charges separate entering judg- $5.00 the trial court ad- for filed fee versely affected ...no ment docket. See 12 O.S.1991 Supreme may Court until taken subse- 1771.1. purposes.82 purposes, but not all other than a all some for fully provisions would not have restored the symmetry preserve today, we repealed 696 nor those in eoncededly perfection, falls short of is essen- simply tial —not for its own sake —but also propose run dissents a rescue mis- legislature because the doubtless intended dilatory lawyers. They hope sion for general that a unreserved verdict becomes bring well-nigh goal about the unattainable of qua judgment purposes all at efficacious for dismissal-proof appeals,88but nonetheless fall time, computing the same whether be for achieving complete uniformity. short of Un- interest,83 postjudgment issuing for execu- 993A, provisions prescribe der the of tion,84 bringing appeal, suspend- for an or for decisions, appeal interlocutory time for ing judgment’s pending effectiveness pronouncement run time would still from the all, appellate appeals review. After are but a entry’s rather than from the date.89 filed judg- continuation of the same case after adoption approach Our of dissents’ would ment.85 bring uniformity hence about some

appeals, leaving conjecture point to sheer E accrue, begin in time would when interest to issue, may quests execution vacation be THIS COURT MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE brought, dormancy occur.90 The dissents ITS JUDGMENT THE FOR WILL OF hope appeal to save this from but dismissal THE LEGISLATURE THAT IS accomplish goal judicial cannot their without IN A CLEARLY EXPRESSED STAT- disregard plain legislative of intent. UTE86 judgment The title of an act is an additional Once transmuted into guide ascertaining legislative to intent.87 accep force of its unreserved ” “restoring roll, prior appear judgment The words law tance and into the today. the title of the act we construe Had verdict becomes legislature enforceable, appealable subject intended that the clerk-en that is to anything supersedeas post- tered unreserved verdict be as well to as accrual of adopted uniformity appears carry 82. If the dissents' views were to be to- 88. Even where to day, trigger period thirty-day day, always lawyers for the for vaca- there will be room for See, Horinek, judgments e.g., tion would become clouded. The make mistakes. Allen v. 827 Cir.1987), (10th pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 1031.1 are: F.2d where an early. was because it was filed too dismissed (30) thirty days "Within the rendition after appeals Premature are not unknown to our own court, judgment, of its own initiative or Nation, jurisprudence. See Matter Estate correct, party, may open, on motion of a modi- Okl., 834 P.2d fy judgment. [Emphasis provided.] or vacate a pertinent 89. The terms of 12 O.S.1991 993A pertinent 83. The terms of O.S.1991 727 are: provide interlocutory that an of certain judgments (30) "All of courts of record shall bear may brought thirty days orders "within pursuant prescribed at a rate to subsec- interest after the order is issued.” tion B of this section ... from the date of ”* * * [Emphasis provided.] rendition. pertinent 90. The terms of 12 O.S.1991 735 are: provid- “If execution is not issued and filed as Undertakings stay under 12 O.S. 84. execution garnishment ed in Section 759 of this title or a statutory provisions § 968.1 and other summons is not issued the court clerk with- govern judgment’s linked enforcement are (5) years any judgment the date five after appeal. perfecting an those for may that now is or hereafter be rendered any court of record in this state ... such Price, 198 Okl. Oil & Gas Co. v. 85. Mabee shall become unenforceable and effect, operate and shall cease to as a lien on the real estate of the debtor....” Tchrs., City Okl. Fed. Ind. School Dist. v. analysis, years Under one dissent's the five Okl., might start to run on the date given by operation §of or it could run Dist., judge-signed at from the date a memorialization Ind. School was filed. prior holding Recognizing reassess their commitment to a interest. the same temporal points judg- all incidents binding precedent under the doctrine of legislature’s (1) decisis, intent to re- they appraise ment must whether stare fulfills law, preserves prior store the the needed proved the rule has to be intolerable symmetry present procedural re- (2) defying practical workability, whether the gime protects litigants both and courts subject rule is to the sort of reliance that nightmare.92 a veritable special hardship would add to the conse-

quences overruling inequity (3) repudiation, prin- related cost of whether F developed ciples of law have so far that the old rule remains no more than a remnant of IN THE ANY ABSENCE OF COMPEL- facts LING REASON TO OVERRULE abandoned doctrine and whether JACO, WE MUST FOLLOW ITS changed have so or come to be viewed so AND APPLY THEM TEACHINGS differently that the old rule has been robbed THIS APPEAL TODAY TO significant application justification.97 stated, Simply stare decisis means to We must be mindful of these factors as we by decided cases.93 This time-honored abide today. authority revisit Jaco Jaco’s does not capricious rule “serves to take the element unworkabilily. teachings from suffer Jaco’s give stability. out of law”94 and has Jaco applied have been at least ten since it times today’s quest settled the outcome of for dis 1992; February only in became effective one missal; teachings govern must here. Un precipitated by other dismissal has Jaco bad,” precedents “palpably judicial less are approach come to our attention.98 Jaco’s is surgery upsetting them must be avoided.95 practical by more far than that counseled suggest cogent The dissents reason to latter, the dissents. Under the once the Jaco;96 they merely adop press discard for spoken, entry triers have could analysis applica tion of an alternative journal lag entry being while the crafted. counsel, accepted, Their ble statutes. if practice A time-honored rule of casts on the procedural design would reinstate a that the party responsibility prepar- victorious legislature already expressly has tried and journal ing entry. appealing party— a body statutory eliminated our from nearly always litigant the defeated no—has law. process. firm control over the Jaco’s more judicial par- justices workable solution eliminates and

When the of the United Supreme upon ty judgment’s entry;99 pure States Court are called to control over the statutory symmetry Douglas, 94. William O. For an executable 49 Co- Stare Decisis, judgment’s entry lum.L.Rev. 736 for three different classes of deciding §§ 22 mechanism under O.S.1991 et Smith, Okl., (1955); Edge v. seg., Appendix opinion. see the to this Co., v. Jackson Twin State Oil 95 Okl. 218 P. Semans, Webb 110 Okl. legislatively rejected approach If the dissents’ 235 P. adopted today, judges pow- would were have the of a er to alter the incidence unreserved teachings 96. One hints that have dissent Jaco's filing postponing of its memo- dismissals; large in a resulted number of we entry. might rialized debtor know of one. See the text at note infra subjected appeal to successive executions before designation Day, supra 98 and note 28. Uncertainty time starts to run. over when the Parenthood, 97. Planned -U.S. judge might sign entry a memorialized could infra at-, 112 S.Ct. at 2809-2816. setting penal create confusion sum for stay supersedeas or bonds and foster additional Day, supra 98. See note 28. litigation over whether the debtor re- judge-signed entry due notice that a had ceived long permit 99. We have a refused to trial court to explanation, been filed. For additional see infra taking appeal vacating the time extend for an note 99. sought and Woods, reentering it at a later date. Starr (5th 1979). Dictionary 93. Black’s Law ed. Okl. 4,§ judgment. Art. legal process Above law.” Okl. Const.101 We are effects all, teaching represents fidelity Jaco’s to the powerless plea to entertain corrective legislative recent its will to reaffirmation of lodged expiration relief of maximum after practice repudiate the common-law statutory bring timely time. Failure to depend judicial imprima- verdicts on made jurisdictional constitutes a defect.102 tur, gives repeal and full effect 990A,103 By operation of 12 O.S.1991 yesterday’s requirement judge-signed 696.1,104 conjunction viewed in with journal after appealable event for common-law actions re- jury verdict. by general solved unreserved verdict arises consequences overruling Jaco could verdict, the clerk’s (a) hardship present indeed cause qua judgment, preparatory the court’s to its litigants might delay in future who encounter entry upon Appeal roll.105 (b) obtaining judge-signed journal entry, thirty lodged days must be within of such inequities to those whose eases have been (e) filing.106 Jaco, verdict’s lawyers, decided under disservice courts, litigants by making alike them subject yet change procedure another Judgment in this case was filed (d) legitimacy subversion of the court’s 6,1992. accomplished March This was public and erosion of confidence in the following sequential stages: after the development court’s decisions. No recent deliberation, returned from the verdicts were soundness; has robbed Jaco of its its control- (2) aloud; read the court examined the ver ling expressly rule has been at reaffirmed lawyer; dict forms and showed them to the February least ten times since 1992.100 In (3) judge “accept the announced he would the sum, arguments the advanced the dis- verdict forms as and enter rendered” “these compelling sents Jaco’s demise for offer (4) case;” verdicts a as the depart reason to settled law in from favor of verdicts were filed to await their on the

judicial abrogation freshly a reenacted of legislative mandate. roll and on the court’s By operation § docket. 696.1 these ver of Ill ripened judg dicts a eo instante into “filed Nothing ment” in the case. remained to be

ORDERLY PROCESS MANDATES journal done after March 6. The THAT APPLY March 26 WE JACO TO APPEAL TODAY’S entry, although perhaps securing critical for trigger n review,107 did court’s reviewing cognizance This court’s time. provided invocable “in the manner 990A, § supra 103. For the terms of 12

100. See note 28. see supra note 29. 4,§ pertinent 101. The terms of Art. Okl. Const., provide: 696.1, supra § 104. For the terms of see note 1. Supreme appellate jurisdiction "The coextensive with the State and Court shall be 1; Jaco, supra 105. See 12 O.S.1981 note equity; extend to all cases at law and in shall supra * * * 823 P.2d at 364. note jurisdiction appellate original and the appellate Supreme Court and all other of courts shall be invoked in the manner provided 990A, 28; supra 106. See 12 O.S.1991 provided.] [Emphasis Jaco, law." supra note 823 P.2d at 364. 992; Presbyterian §§ 12 O.S.1991 990A and 107. The dissent's statement that because the Okl., Corr., Hosp. 693 P.2d v. Bd. Tax-Roll require signed terms of 12 O.S.1991 32.3 a Chapter Etc. v. Okl. Western journal entry, appeal time must commence with Etc., Okl., (1980). For State 990A, 990A, filing Compare § is incorrect. stat- note 29. pertinent see terms part: appealing judg- provide pertinent ute that sets the time a The terms of for from regulates or final order with 32.3 ment any error in parties may defect or "The waive appellate content record. See Johnson v. timely appeal except perfecting an error_” Johnson, Okl., provided.] [Emphasis petition U, February peal entered date is Jaco’s effective force of general unreserved 1992;108 696.1 verdict in verdict. this ease came on March Jaco’s109 teaching clearly requires that this carry day, the If allowed to dissents untimely. Today’s dismissal dismissed (b) (a) effectiveness, would the verdict’s defer harsh; yet may appear fundamental fairness dependent upon judicial legal make its force litigation process cannot be ex afforded (c) substitute this court’s intervention and cept orderly proced within a framework of legislature by lawlessly for that of the will provide dismissal-proof ure.110 We cannot abandoning fidelity legislative history lawyers. for No area of the law environment stands and to the text 696 that restored range may lay exemption claim to from the jurisprudence Recent verbatim as orderly procedure’s basic strictures —not legislature’s effectuates the unmistak- which process by unre even the § 696 and its intent to able recommitment to judg verdict is transmuted into served judicial dispense action as with affirmative Chaos, by operation §of ca ment 696.1. “entry” judgment— prerequisite for pronouncements price and ad hoc would inev progeny114 and its have to Jaco —would itably slightest departure. follow from the scheme, adopted, This stand overruled. if applied Procedural rules must be mechani (1) the law’s would cause us to sacrifice cally to avoid the uncertainties that arise conceptual symmetry the illusion sim- exceptions when are created.111 Evenhanded (2) uniformity, ignore plicity and settled undeviating calls

fairness enforcement of statutory principles construction and conformity orderly process.112 any without throw settled law to the winds compelling semblance reason. The open “justi- court would be to criticism SUMMARY principles given reexamination had fiable way particular to drives results in the Rodgers’ bodily injury and his claim for term.”115 short derivative claim for loss of consortium wife’s Rodgers’ single pathogenic blood arose only judgment in this case was that plaintiff single had but a Each transfusion. roll “entered” “filed” claim.113 Both were decided on March 1992 in obedience to the com- unreserved verdict for all four defendants. mand 696.1. The must be dis- preserved proceedings in the Any error untimely. missed as which culminated in the claims’ submission timely ap- APPEAL DISMISSED. have been reviewable in would opinion rehearing); Pryse governed ever since its effective v. 108. Jaco has Monument Co. Etc., Okl., See the cases note 28. supra District Court date. Jaco, supra 823 P.2d at 364. 109. See note single gives 113. A delictual occurrence rise to legal but cause of action or to one claim. one " * * * procedure spells much it is that Retherford, supra note 572 P.2d at 968-969. by law and rule whim between rule difference or proce to strict Steadfast adherence caprice. Jaco, 823 P.2d at 364-365 and supra safeguards our main assurance dural the cases note 28. ”** * equal justice law. under there will be Refugee [Emphasis provided.] Joint Anti-Fascist opinion 115. In an which holds that the doctrine 123, 179, McGrath, 341 U.S. Committee v. requires reaffirmance of of stare decisis v. Roe J., 624, 652, (1951) (Douglas, S.Ct. 95 L.Ed. holding, explains Wade’s core Justice O’Conner concurring). overruling precedent without the most com reasons would overtax the pelling country's Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 111. United States and cause judiciary's good in the belief faith 36 L.Ed.2d 93 S.Ct. legitimacy frequency with Court's fade Planned Parenthood vacillation. Southeastern — Fabrication, Okl., -, -, U.S. Pennsylvania Casey, Welding Snyder & v. Smith 2791, 2815, (supplemental S.Ct. 120 L.Ed.2d 674 171 n. 1 LAVENDER, HODGES, C.J., and SIMMS and ALMA WILSON and V.C.J. WATT, JJ., concur. SUMMERS, JJ., CHAPEL, S.J., sitting KAUGER, J., by designation in lieu of who

HARGRAVE, J., concurs reason of recused, decisis. dissent. stare

APPENDIX AN OF EXECUTABLE SYMMETRY THE STATUTORY DIFFERENT THREE CLASSES OF ENTRY FOR

JUDGMENT'S SEQ. 22 ET UNDER 12 §§ MECHANISM DECIDING SEQ.) (LAWS ET C. §§ CATEGORY 990A, no I: Under exists until the terms of 12 the court's affirmative O.S.1981 ^[697] approval (now ^[12] of a O.S.1991 special 697.1), verdict construed together effected by filed with 12 journal O.S. 1991 entry. CATEGORY no Okl. judicial approval 229, 127 II: The terms a verdict to become the court’s (1942); of 12 O.S.1981 Jaco Production ^[696] and of its Co. v. progeny, Luca, in the action. P.2d ^[364] construed Peoples Electric conjunction Co-op. with v. Broughton, 990A, require ^[191] CATEGORY III: As in Category I, no exists until it effected by a filed journal entry. 990A. WILSON, Justice, dissenting: ALMA rers to the evidence. The by jury returned dispose did not of the jurisdictional resolving question— In warranty, fraud misrepresentation and issues appeal begin when case did time this which jury. were withheld from the majority to run —the “common classifies law petition in error seeks review of errors com- special appellate actions” for treatment. Un- mitted the trial sustaining court in today’s opinion, der an unreserved mid-trial demurrers to the evidence. de- In verdict in a “common tried to law action” ciding appeal, the untimeliness of this jury appealable judgment becomes of the majority finds that under our transitional court when it is entered the court clerk. approach to appellants “causes of action” are is, appeal That time will run from the appeal not entitled to an from the trial Further, rendering jury of the verdict. un- rulings court’s mid-trial on the demurrers to today’s opinion, appeal der from an unre- only appealable the evidence—that the issues jury served verdict in a “common law action” by general are jury those determined verdict. is restricted to those issues submitted to the disagree. I is, jury. parties right That are denied a appeal jury. to issues not submitted to the appellants right appeal have a Classification of sepa- sustaining appellees’ “common law actions” mid-trial demurrers rate and distinct appeal from other civil actions for to the perfect- evidence. The must be limitation of thirty days time and restriction of recording ed within of the of the appealable disposes issues is untenable.1 It is incon- of all the issues.4 O.S.1991, 2002, sistent with 12 pro- petition in error herein was filed within “[tjhere vides that thirty days shall be one form of action recording of the trial ” to be known as judgment.5 ‘civil action.’ It has a court’s chilling right by jury2 affect on the to a trial Trial approximately was had this case and access to the courts.3 publication one month before of our order in ease, Luca,

In malpractice this medical Company Jaco Production v. (Okla.1991), court sustained several of defendants’ demur- holding that the time Commission, procedural (Okla.1991); poration 1. Serious confusion is certain under 805 P.2d 657 case, today’s opinion. (Okla.1989); appellate Agee, Case Reevesv. 769 P.2d 745 Eason classify Inc., courts will have Company Engineering, actions as "common Oil v. Howard action, (Okla.1988); Methvin, law” or “not common law." This civil P.2d 669 v. Methvin malpractice negli based on medical or medical Hurley Okl. 127 P.2d 186 fraud, gence, misrepresentation, consent and Hurley, 191 Okl. 127 P.2d 147 theories, warranty is classified as a "common action,” though law even those theories are rec journal entry, memorializing 5.The the mid-trial ognized in our statutes. In our order in McGin rulings granting judgment on the ver- Republic-Underwriters Company, nis v. Insurance dict, 26, 1992, provides: was filed on March (Okla.1992), 830 P.2d 191 this Court refused to Luca, 6th, completed apply Company On March Jaco Production Plaintiffs their evi- (Okla.1991). special dence and P.2d 364 We said that a rested and the Defendants inter- statutory postjudgment garnishment proceeding posed warranty demurrers on the claim which However, sustained; misrepresen- is not O.S.1991, "common-law action.” on the fraud and provides sustained; § 1177 that the issues tation claim which was on the con- garnishment postjudgment overruled; “shall stand for trial sortium claim which was and the as a action.” civil informed consent claim which was overruled. proceeded put The Defendants on evidence Const., deciding being 2. Okla. art. 19. In to exer- and rested on March 6th. There rebuttal, right by jury, cise their constitutional to trial the Court instructed the and clos- litigants appeal may ing arguments must consider the risk that were made both sides. After given jury. deliberation, be restricted to the issues open due returned into (10) person signed court with their ten Const., by jurors. 3. Okla. art. 6. The denial of an ten The the Court examined appeal jury attorneys of issues withheld from a closes the verdict forms as well as the and there being request poll juiy, courts to those issues. the the Court accepted received and the verdict in favor of O.S.1991, 990A; §§ Deposit 4. 12 the Defendants. 681 and Federal Tidwell, Corporation petition Insurance 820 P.2d 1338 The in error was filed with this Court on (Okla.1991); Energy Corp. April DBL v. Oklahoma Cor- to the that the conforms entry ascertain of the unreserved from the record runs reading is consistent with This majority writes verdict. jury The verdict. O.S.1991, provides: § 32.3 which ignore the doctrine “flippantly that we cannot merely and overrule Jaco of stare decisis duty the court to write A. It is the unwary litigant the dead- missed because an orders, out, judgments sign record its and filing appeal.” Refusal to adhere an line for time within a reasonable and decrees ignore the in this case does to Jaco after rendition.... was not an of stare decisis. Jaco doctrine order, judgment B. A recorded written sustaining orders de- appeal from mid-trial juris- signed by the court is a or decree inapposite. to the evidence. Jaco is murrers appellate prerequisite re- dictional authority denying party the is not Jaco [Emphasis added.] view. sustain- right appeal to an from the mid-trial legislative Nothing in 696.1 indicates a evidence; nor does it ing to the of demurrers appellate jurisdic- dispense with the intent to calcu- appeal that the time shall be intimate plainly set out in 32.3.8 prerequisite tional entry jury the the of a verdict on lated from legislative in- Nothing in 696.1 indicates a appearance docket.6 tent to “transform” an “unreserved into in a “common law action” verdict” O.S.1991, holding upon 12 rests The Jaco appealable of the court. the provides: 696.1 696.1.7 Section today’s ruling, appeal time in the Under had, judg- by jury has been a trial When run from “not common law actions” will those by the clerk in must be entered ment journal entry signed filing the of the written verdict, conformity it is unless by judge trial in accordance with the the to be or the court order the case special, statutory changes parties and the will latest argument future or consider- reserved for appeal raised before be entitled to all issues [Emphasis added.] ation. court, including issues withheld from the trial But, reading jury. appeal and reasonable the time “common The sensible the speci- will continue 696.1 is that it tried to a plain the words of law actions” appeal appellate regime duty court clerks —when under the old of the various fies —the by pronouncement triggered time the judgment, the court clerk must will entering a accepted by and recorded Liberty turned the National Bank and Trust 6.In Martin v. Oklahoma, City, Company court. Oklahoma the trial (Okla.1992), appeal- "an we said that entry is entered when record able thirty day time in which an 7. Prior to judge. signed” Consistent with Mar- was triggered by perfected appeal could be tin, correctly says majority opinion Liberty judgment. pronouncement Martin v. "(r)ecord entry effected a clerk’s is never Company Trust Oklahoma National Band and docket; appearance posted minute on the Oklahoma, (Okla.1992). City, 839 P.2d 179 In nothing than a appearance more or less docket providing were amended the statutes filings chronological abstract of index of an filing appeal be calculated from the of the time Yet, ap- significant it is the courtroom events.” Okla.Sess.Laws, 251, § judgment. ch. entry is before this Court. pearance docket is the event which of the entry jury verdict in the the mere It is appearance the. begins under the latest time limitation trig- majority finds docket which Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 251. amendments. gered time. response appellant’s to the dismiss- Attached to 32.3, Liberty Strictly adhering in Martin Daily request copy Minutes for is a of the al Company and Trust Oklahoma National Bank the office of the Tulsa 1992 filed in March (Okla.1992), Oklahoma, City, we 839 P.2d 179 11, 1992, County March which is Court Clerk on judge as rejected order initialed a minute entry ap- substantially on the the same as the finding legisla- judgment, appealable that the an appellees’ dismissal pearance attached to docket signature explicitly required clearly ture request. appearance docket is labeled "Civil jurisdictional prerequisite to judge as Court, Docket, County, Tulsa Action Clerk of well as appellate Section review. Oklahoma, Judge, DJ. BOU- DIV-D-7—Hon. reen- 05/25/90, §§ and 990A were amended DREAU, Date, and/or Case ID CJ-TU-90- File Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 251. 002558-07, 1991. 1991 acted in Medical Mal-Practice.” 696.1 should be consistent Our construction of is an abstract the date of March under provisions law. of the 1991 including with the other proceeding, the verdict re- accepts journal entry court judgment or when the trial with the date the discharges jury. I jury verdict and find was filed. Id. 459 P.2d at 854. no reason to transform an unreserved 1, Beginning January prior on law any appealable verdict in action into the repealed3 thirty-day appeal was and the time

judgment of the court. began only judgment to run when the was case, judgment In this was rendered on “filed” with the district court clerk. 6, 1992, accepted March when the court § O.S.Supp.1990 judgment 1004.4 The was discharged jury. the verdict and pronouncement bench, not the from the but judgment signed by judge the trial and en- an prescribed by instrument whose form was 26, in tered the record on March 1992 is the 12 O.S.Supp.1990 statute. 1001. Sections appealable judgment. Accordingly, ap- this 1001 and 1004 in were effect for five n peal timely. I dissent to dismissal of this months.5 join appeal the dissent Justice Sum- 1, 1991, Starting continuing June mers. present, thirty-day appeal time be- gins “judgment to run on the date is filed.” SUMMERS, Justice, dissenting. 12 O.S.1991 990A.6 While documents and My analysis of the relevant statutes is that filed, exhibits can be an oral declaration or judgment pronounced when is on a “pronouncement” Thus, cannot. this new thirty-day appeal begins verdict the time to statutory concept scheme retained the of a journal entry to run from the date judgment, purposes computing for the judgment analysis in the case. This filed appeal, being time to some instrument contrary opinion to the court’s recent case, rejected filed the idea that Luca, Jaco Production Co. v. 823 P.2d 364 appeal time to run would from the date the (Okla.1991), and, course, today’s case. judgment pronounced. was 990A Section specify does not the form or nature of the 1, January appeal Prior to 1991 an was filed, part instrument be and that is of the by filing petition commenced in this Court problem in this case. thirty days in error within of the date of the judgment. final order or O.S.1981 990.1 majority’s analysis calculating Market, Berry, In Inc. v. Warehouse appeal judgment time to this based on a (Okla.1969) P.2d 853 decided that “the we jury’s expressed by syllo- can verdict be this judgment” ... date of the was the date the gism: judgment pronounced was and became effec- judgment. 1. The is a long standing prece- tive. This view followed day In dent.2 Warehouse Market we also con- 2. The verdict was filed on the it was judgment pronounced trasted the date a was returned. part: appeal O.S.Supp.1990 part: 1. Section 990 stated in "An to the 4. 12 1004 stated in "An Supreme may appealable Court commenced an from a or order of a appealable may by filing decision of a court or tribunal court or tribunal be commenced Supreme petition Supreme with the Clerk Court a in error with Clerk of the error, (30) (30) petition thirty days thirty days within from the Court within after the date of the judgment sought appealable sought date of the final order or to be or order to be re- purpose appeal, reviewed.” viewed. For the of an the date the date it filed with the shall be was court clerk.” Historically, considered an act of a court and was thus dated from the rendition pronouncement by entry. §§ O.S.Supp.1990 the court and not its 5. 12 1001 and 1004 were re- Bank, Mooney pealed See v. First State 48 Okla. Laws c. 22 eff. June (1915) 149 P. where the court dis- (now cussed Revised Laws 1910 5138 12 O.S. 696.1) McQuown, and In re 19 Okla. part: 6. Section 990A states in "An 91 P. 689 may by filing Supreme Court be commenced petition Supreme with the Clerk of the error repealed by thirty days

3. 12 O.S.1981 990 Laws Court within from the date the c. is filed.” eff. Jan. final order or 420 Therefore, performed by “a judgment the was filed on defined as ministerial act

3. is day by the the was returned. of verdict the clerk of the court means judicial act in permanent evidence of ren [a] begins My departure analysis with this dering judgment a of is made record the judg- premise. is not a its first A verdict (4th Dictionary, court.” Black’s 625 ed. law, Law ment. Not under the common not 1951). agreement; Our case-law is “The 12 under O.S.1991 696.1. entry judgment ordinarily of consists of the majority at recognizes that common upon spreading ministerial act of the same judgment. con- a verdict is not a It law proper judgment writing the record or it at cludes, however, 696.17 transforms a large judgments.” in the book of De Watte judgment. “eo instante” into a I Sims, 708, 224, v. 44 146 P. ville Okla. 227 transmogrifica- disagree theory with this of (1915). Huston, Abernathy also See v. 166 a trial has occurred a tion. When 184, (1933); 939, City 26 P.2d Okla. 944 by “judgment must be entered the clerk in Cornell, 600, Clinton v. 191 Okla. 132 P.2d conformity the 12 with verdict”. (1942); Miller, 340, (or 664 342 Miller v. judgment pronounced ac- 696.1. The 1032, (Okla.1983). entry 1034 is not the cepted) by upon the the verdict court is judgment, a by but record or evidence of a appearance on the docket “entered” the Huston, provides judgment. Abernathy 12 166 clerk. Title O.S.1991 23 v. Okla. 184, 939, (1933); duty Boynton the on the clerk has to “enter” the 26 P.2d 944 v. judg- Crockett, 869, appearance 57, 61, docket of all “an abstract 12 P. Okla. 69 871 ments and orders of the court”.8 simply requires a clerk Section course, And, entry judgment of a is not judgment proper on enter a the court record synonymous rendering pronouncing with or a judgment conforming to a verdict. judgment. Peoples Co-Op. Electric v. by opera- to have deemed been “rendered” Broughton, 127 P.2d at 853. See St. Louis & law; i.e., is, by judgment opera- tion “the Taliaferro, v. 160 S.F.R. Co. 58 Okla. P. law, tion of rendered the verdict of when (we (1916), explained 612 that at that accepted.” Peoples is returned and brought time an must have been with- Co-Op. Broughton, v. 191 Electric Okla. judg- in six months of rendition of the 853 But neither the ment, within six months from the judg- entry

verdict nor the amounts to the Harkins, “entry” judgment); Jaqua of the v. explained As v. ment. we Walker St. Ind.App. 40 82 922 N.E. Ry., Francisco Louis San Bartholet, Beetchenow 162 Wash. (Okla.1983), by judge, it is the not the clerk Thus, entering P. the act of verdict, entry, jury by nor the its who judgment act, a is a distinct from ministerial jury. judgment in tried to the renders a case judicial pronouncing judgment. act of a White, Ashinger also 106 Okla. See (1924), P. 850 after a verdict where was Likewise, “entry” judgment cannot judgment pronounced on returned equated “filing” judgment. with “Fil- court, on the verdict nor entered ing” is defined as deliver an “[t]o instrument journal, though the entered verdict was paper to proper or other officer for the appearance docket. being purpose kept by proper him in the (4th Dictionary, Entering judgment place.” Black’s to have been Law ed. deemed 1951). document, judicial act, Filing pronounced not a court is an “Entry judgment” judgment but a ministerial one. order refer two different had, required time a to enter 7. “When trial has been 8. At one clerk was conformity to must be entered the clerk in on the docket rendition verdict, special, See, unless or the court order the judgment. e.g., 12 O.S.1941 argument to be reserved or con- case for future entered on Now need not be This sideration." O.S.1991 696.1. statute judgment docket until after the rendition new, is not as its former codification at 12 O.S. judg- and the an affidavit of days. § 696 dates back to Territorial See 12 O.S.1991 ment. Territory, Statutes of Oklahoma procedures. Morgan In ex rel. majority appears State v. The to hold that a verdict Lamm, (1896) 9 S.D. judgment N.W. is the purpose appeal for the of an Supreme explained Court of South Dakota when the in I verdict is filed the case. must the difference “entry” between the terms and respectfully disagree. “filed”, noting “entry” “[r]ecording that an is view, my journal entry In it is the in thing due form and a order done in court” judgment descriptive that satisfies the statu- “receiving paper and to “file” is a into custo- tory phrase present § in our 990A. This dy, giving place among and it a pa- other recognized legal maintains the in distinctions pers”. Id. 69 N.W. at 592. The court said: legislature the terms used commenc- “The terms ‘entered’ frequently and ‘filed’ date, ing January continuing 1991 and to statute, they occur in the hut are never used long recognized as well as the distinctions synonymous as (Emphasis terms.” Id. “judgment”. between a “verdict” and a mine). This subsequently court defined the Legislature appeal could have started time doing term “filed” in upon and so relied judgment from the date the becomes effec- Farrow, South Dakota decision. Aaron v. tive, rendered, entered, or is or or when a 113 Okla. 238 P. filed, verdict is returned or it but chose sense, opinions perfect These make be- to do so. It said “from the date the final (1) duty cause a clerk has a dual to make the mine) judgment (emphasis order or is filed.” docket, proper “entry” on a 12 O.S.1991 attempt distinguish It made no between together and to “file and careful- judgments jury based on common law ver- office, ly preserve in papers his all delivered dicts, judgments based on non common-law purpose every to him for that in action or verdicts, judgments or rendered special proceeding.” 12 O.S.1991 29. The jury. My analysis court a without of these together clerk does not papers “enter” deliv- require appeal statutes would the time to case, ered to him or in her a and neither does judgment begin from a on a verdict to the clerk “file” an on a docket. The journal entry judgment when the is filed equated “entry”, term “filed” cannot be with the case. O.S.1991 990A. a Such view judgment upon and when a is “entered” judgments treats all trial court the same for proper prop- court record the same act is not calculating appeal, time to and avoids the Thus, erly “filing”. described as when the majority’s unnecessarily creating result of judgment pro- clerk enters an abstract of judgments may escape appel- subclass of “entry” nounced on a verdict that does unwary litigants. late review because of filing judgment not constitute the of a so as rendered, judgment IHere believe was and thirty-day appeal.

to start time to entered, on March but not filed until timely which March would make the Peti- “entry” I conclude that a clerk’s on a dock- In April tion Error filed separate et is a distinct and act from when case, an instrument is “filed” that both of majority writing. misreads this Of pronounce- the act of these are distinct from only judgment upon course there is one judgment, may all ment or rendition of a and single judgment cause of action. That occurs It true that the occur on different dates. rendered, pronounced. when or In this duty by fulfill his or her clerk will often ease was rendered when the court entering proper on the docket accepted jury, the verdict of the on March i.e., returned, upon the date the verdict is Legislature, 6th. The in a commendable at- That done in this case. rendition. tempt bring clarity uniformity ap- But are concerned here with the nature we of peals, gone way has out of its to declare that required by 990A to be the instrument longer the time for starts when the purpose as a “filed” rendered, judgment is but rather when it is only filed. It is on what constitutes the may majori- filed in the ease of a that I While a verdict be differ from the proper ty maintain used to enter a that the verdict itself is not a —I docket, “judgment”, judgment, judgment, though it cannot “filed” as a and that the be “entered”, judgment. existence the verdict itself is not and even is not since “filed” only application”, one has to “experience in until the starting appeal time purposes of majority opinion, cites sev- the clerk’s hands. look to the journal entry reaches invoking the rule of very recent cases eral symmetry in the majority yearns for Jaco, lifetime. although it has had but a short not, in fact appeals process, but does states, two, have re- opinion If great cannot, creates it. Jaco itself extend dismissals, may that low number sulted unevenness, is retained but whether Jaco giv- prospective application attributed fact that rejected, still remain the there will predict there It is safe en the doctrine. will be case in a bench-tried today’s pipeline as are others in the same pro- the moment and effective rendered more will follow. Jaco appellant, and that nounced, time to it will but the unwary continuing trap for the established journal entry. filing of the until commence statutory language litigant on the who relies spoken. so I believe legislature has right appeal lopped her to have his or is, be, and, fact, the same for law should and this should be overruled off. The case judgments. 696.1 does jury-based Section timely. appeal held respectfully' I sub- otherwise. not mandate process symmetry appellate in the if mit that goal, Jaco is not solution.

is a is that courts principle of stare decisis prior opinions principles from uphold

often they otherwise though would decide

even one, and consider question a new

were stability and the importance of the law’s judicial holdings upon property, con effect BANK NATIONAL OF UNION tracts, Fi and titles. Oklahoma Preferred CHANDLER, Appellee, Morrow, 497 P.2d Corp. v. nance & Loan (Okla.1972); 221, County Oklahoma 223-224 v. I.O.O.F., 197, Queen City Lodge No.

v. (SEMINOLE), Formerly BANCFIRST 340, 131, v. P.2d Webb Okla. Seminole, Bank of First National (1925), Semans, 235 P. 110 Okla. Appellant. Court). But the court will (Syllabus No. 75888. they opinions are mani prior when not follow cogent rea there are festly erroneous and Supreme of Oklahoma. Court County overruling them. Oklahoma sons I.O.O.F., Queen City Lodge su No. v. Nov. recently that a pra. we have said More April Rehearing Denied precedent departure from should substantial unsatisfactory experi upon either be based precedent, application

ence with environment. light of an altered historic Commission, Tax

Phillips v. Oklahoma (Okla.1978). This rule 1285-1286 procedure. Harris

applies to matters

Hudson, 250 P. Okla. denied, (1926), 273 U.S. S.Ct. cert. cert, nom. L.Ed. 869 and denied sub Harris, 743, 47 S.Ct. 273 U.S.

Owens (the (1927), supremacy of the

71 L.Ed. 869 through only by and maintained

law can be prescribed by the law orderly procedure

itself). it was was erroneous when

I Jaco believe erroneous. As to and is still

decided

Case Details

Case Name: Rodgers v. Higgins

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Apr 15, 1994

Citation: 871 P.2d 398

Docket Number: 79,454

Court Abbreviation: Okla.