*1 equities” by weighing must be done and de
termining respective interests of the property zoning authority. owner
Bankoff, appellants P.2d at 1142. The appellees agree appellants’ that the law
suit would test moratorium the sub sequently regulations. enacted We have held that an cannot forum exercise jurisdiction by making first-instance initial law, will decisions on facts or remand they with directions that made the trial court. American Ins. Ass’n State Indus Com’n, appellants urged by But the issues already separate before the district court
case.
Accordingly, pre- we find that issue appellants by agreement sented appellees is moot and should be dis- missed. It is so ordered.
APPEAL DISMISSED. C.J.,
HODGES, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, KAUGER, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur.
LAVENDER, V.C.J., dissent. THOMPSON, Appellant,
Darrell R. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. COUNTY, OF GARFIELD Okla homa, Covington-Douglas School a/k/a I-94, County, Garfield Okla
homa, Appellees.
No. 81591. Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Dec. As Corrected *2 attorney’s appeal as to
to dismiss award. post-judgment order
A In attorney’s appealable is an order. fees 1067, K.L.F., 1068- the Matter of (Okla.1994). 13, July the or On attorney’s and for fees costs dered award filed, running commencing the of time was appeal appeal that Such an for order. thirty days of brought must be within was in the District Court. date order filed 990A; Roofing Turner & Stapleton, 927 n. Sheet Metal (Okla.1994). 1.17(a), Appel Rule Rules Cases, expressly in re Civil late Procedure petition to a in quires that an amendment order, judgment, challenge “an to error interest, costs, denying granting or or fees, must filed with this Court thirty days of the trial court within day In to III, this case last Tahlequah, order.” Young, R. Nathan appeal granting fees was the order pellant. Thursday, August The amended Roberts, Jones, Stephen Michael Jones late, day in one since it petition error was Enid, appellees. Wyatt, & Friday, August We was mailed appellate that review agree with Defendants SUMMERS, Justice. timely not fee award was invoked, timely appealed Plaintiff is not our this case award verdict, day a was in review this attempt late an usually an is The dismissal of awarding attorney’s fees. judgment order affirming having the effect of considered -as a must limit the issues We appealed and thus order the District Court judgment on verdict challenge of of finali characteristic giving that order the itself, post-judg- and the correctness of Burkhart v. Wa ty. Estate Matter of awarding attorney’s not fees is ment order baunsee, (Okla.1979); Anco at time. before us Swank, Mfg. Supply & jury for Defendants was filed A verdict (Okla.1974). But we decline to take April 1993 and the Journal a jurisdiction over late amended Plain- May filed on Judgment was post-judgment attacking a in error petition in this petition a in error tiff filed cogni denial of our order on fees His Monday, May an necessarily amount to af- zance does judgment upon the timely challenge order, to the post-judgment or firmance 990A. verdict. O.S.1991 order final. post-judgment make that Service, Inc. v. Wil in the In Bullard’s Oil Field July there was filed On (Okla. Company, Energy grant- Court a liford appeal,1 1992), prior fees Defendants ing costs to review the attor $117,384.39. mailed Court had declined Plaintiff amount of judgment was Friday, an fees issues because August to this Court on reversed, to the trial seeking the cause remanded error review amended said that: moved court. We post-judgment order. Defendants Service, Energy Company, P.2d 802 Inc. v. 1. Bullard's Oil Field Williford HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., At the end of first there was no HARGRAVE, WILSON, party neither ALMA KAUGER JJ., judgment. WATT, At affirmative the conclu- concur. trial, sion the second Bullard’s SIMMS, J., judgment. money judgment. awarded a At that time *3 prevailing party. Bullard’s became the part, dissents part. 839 Id. P.2d at note omitted. words, OPALA, Justice, concurring
In other we separate- appeal’s did not need to the dismissal; ly dissenting review the award based from the court’s status, prevailing party upon comments about dismissal’s effect. automatically award was vacated once The court dismisses this underlying judgment upon which it been had postjudgment spec- counsel-fee award and based was reversed. Consistent with legal about of I ulates effect its decision. concept may prevailing party status concur the dismissal but recede from all change during the of litigation, course gratuitous commentary consequences explained have that a decision today’s action. finality fees lacks and is Every operates of an dismissal during to reconsideration See legal erase the trial clouded status Cunningham Company v. Public Service court’s decision tendered for corrective relief. Okla., (Okla.1992), 834 P.2d 975-976 always It results in in the sense finality where we trial of a affirmance every post-dismissal mandate leaves the court’s decision fees was tolled prius nisi action undisturbed and retransfers during appeal, court had posture the cause to below in stand the same jurisdiction during an appeal to hear a sec- if no as ever been taken1. But motion ond fees. ipso affirmance does facto pass We do not on whether the award is impervious make the lower court’s decision subject to If immediate execution. the attor- any timely post-mandate authorized and statutory, fees and costs were based challenges. §The 10312 vacation or modifi status,2 award, prevailing party though process3, § delayed petitions cation unappealed, must await merits consideration trial5, new postjudgment common-law either or fall depend- stand pro nunc proceedings6 tunc correction as ing on prevailing party ultimate determina- as well execution contests7 but a few tion. examples against of attacks which affir- mance no bar. proceed This shall as an appeal short, judgment although today’s the verdict as memori- dismissal affirms by Judgment, postjudgment award, alized Journal counsel-fee any and shall not include post-mandate prius proceeding review of the nisi execution judgment judgment may any fees. debtor raise legally Okla., Wabaunsee, Authority, 5. Matter Estate Burkhart v. 2.Rout Public Crescent Works (Okla.1994), (the (attorney's (1979) 1049-1050 594 P.2d speci fees are allowed to a prius nisi an earlier dismissal before after statute). fied appeal). Co., 1. Thornburgh 203 Okla. v. Ben Hur Coal Inc., Industries, 6. Cartwright v. Atlas Chemical (1950). Okla., (nunc pro tunc prius amendment of entertained nisi §§ 12 O.S.1991 seq. et affirmance). an earlier after Vickers, Carey 3. See 53 Okla. Philip Co., Okla., Royal (1916); Turben, syllabus Timmons v. Globe Ins. P. 299 4 in Pippins (1986) (post-mandate (1933). prius nisi Okla. execution-related contest mance). an earlier affir- quest for objections the creditor’s tenable Today’s award’s enforcement. affir- any challenges. manee is no bar to such Oklahoma, Appellant,
The STATE *4 MUNSON, Appellee. Adolph Honel No. PC-93-887. Appeals of Oklahoma. of Criminal Jr., Minton, McMillin, Melrose L.
Joe B. III, Weatherford, trial. for defendant at Julian, Duncan, P. Scott James
David Garrett, Attys., Arapaho, for state Asst. Dist. at trial. Jacobsma, Atkinson, L. R.J. Asst.
Jack appellant Attys., Arapaho, for Dist. peal. Anderson, Autry, W. Wil-
David Richard Wallace, Okla- Devinney, Sherry T. liam C. City, appellee homa
OPINION
CHAPEL, Judge: charged in Munson was Cus- Adolph Honel Court, County Case No. CRF- ter Murder, 84-129, Degree in viola- with First 701.7; O.S.1981, Kidnapping, tion of