See also Conoco, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health, Inc., Okla., 651 P.2d 125, 127 [1982].Bryan v. Seiffert, 185 Okla. 496, 94 P.2d 526, 531 [1939].Barker v. Daniels, 195 Okla. 690, 161 P.2d 854, 855 [1945].
Union Indemnity Co. v. Saling, 166 Okla. 133, 26 P.2d 217, 226, 228 (1933). See Board of Law Library Trustees v. State, Okla., 825 P.2d 1285, 1291 (1991); Spain v. Kernell, Okla., 672 P.2d 1162, 1164-1165 (1983); Bryan v. Seiffert, 185 Okla. 496, 94 P.2d 526, 531-532 (syl. 6) (1939). The WC court has no jurisdiction to consider a controversy between (a) two insurance companies in which an injured claimant is not interested, (b) an employer and its insurer unless a claimant's right is affected, or (c) an employer and an insurance carrier of another employer if the statutory liability to the claimant is not implicated.
Upon the prior appeal from the decree of distribution in the mother's probate case this court did not and could not assume greater jurisdiction over her estate than the county court was itself able to exercise. Bryan v. Seiffert, 185 Okla. 496, 94 P.2d 526, 531-532 [1939]. In Re Cully's Estate, supra note 1.
Oklahoma case law interpreting the cited constitutional and statutory provisions does not appear to dictate a decisive answer to the issue. In Bryan v. Seiffert, 185 Okla. 496, 94 P.2d 526, the Oklahoma Supreme Court considered the question of whether the probate courts had jurisdiction to determine the validity of an heir's assignment of his expectancy interest and held that pursuant to 58 O.S.A. § 644 such was an issue to be decided by that court. The case has unusual emphasis because the jurisdictional question was raised by the appellate court sua sponte.
A case is said to be coram non judice when the court in which it is brought has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute. Goldman v. Goldman, 1994 OK 111, 883 P.2d 164, 166; Board of Law Library Trustees v. State, 1991 OK 122, 825 P.2d 1285, 1291; Spain v. Kernell, 1983 OK 105, 672 P.2d 1162, 1164-65; Bryan v. Seiffert, 1939 OK 315, 94 P.2d 526, 531-32 (the court's syllabus ¶ 6); Black's Law Dictionary at 305 (5th ed. 1979). ¶ 9 Pending an appeal or certiorari the nisi prius court is without jurisdiction over any issue pending on review.
whence the case came by appeal or on certiorari. Lincoln Bank and Trust v. Tax Com'n, Okla., 827 P.2d 1314, 1318 n. 14 (1992); Fields v. A B Electronics Okla. 788 P.2d 940, 941 (1990); Hall v. Edge Okla. 782 P.2d 122, 124 (1989); Baylis v. City of Tulsa Okla., 780 P.2d 686, 688 (1989); April v. City of Broken Arrow, Okla., 775 P.2d 1347, 1355 (1989); Snyder v. Smith Welding Fabrication, Okla., 746 P.2d 168, 171 (1986); Luster v. Bank of Chelsea, Okla., 730 P.2d 506, 508 (1986); Matter of Initiative Petition Filed Nov. 15, 1983, Okla., 718 P.2d 1353, 1354 (1986); Cate v. Archon, Okla., 695 P.2d 1352, 1356 n. 12 (1985); Spain v. Kernell, Okla., 672 P.2d 1162, 1164-1165 (1983); Woods Petroleum Corp. v. Sledge, Okla., 632 P.2d 393, 394 (1981); Pointer v. Hill, Okla., 536 P.2d 358, 361 (1975); Hayhurst v. Hayhurst, Okla., 421 P.2d 257, 260 (1966); Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. Wilkerson, 200 Okla. 335, 193 P.2d 586, 588 (1948); Harber v. McKeown, 195 Okla. 290, 157 P.2d 753, 754 (1945); Bryan v. Seiffert, 185 Okla. 496, 94 P.2d 526, 531-532 (1939). A case is said to be coram non judice when the court in which it is brought has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute.
A case is said to be coram non judice when the court in which it is brought has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY at 305 (5th ed 1979) See Goldman v. Goldman, Okla., 888 P.2d 164, 166 (1994); Board of Law Library Trustees v. State, Okla., 825 P.2d 1285, 1291 (1991); Spain v. Kernell, Okla., 672 P.2d 1162, 1164 1165 (1983); Bryan v. Seiffert, 185 Okl 496, 94 P.2d 526, 531-532 (1939) (the court's syllabus ¶ 6).IITHE CRITICAL ANATOMY OF APPELLATE LITIGATION
Lincoln Bank and Trust v. Tax Com'n, Okla., 827 P.2d 1314, 1318 n. 14 (1992); Cate v. Archon, Okla., 695 P.2d 1352, 1356 n. 12 (1985); Spain v. Kernell, Okla., 672 P.2d 1162, 1164-1165 (1983). See also Bryan v. Seiffert, 185 Okla. 496, 94 P.2d 526, 531-532 (1939). Unless there is an express indication to the contrary — in the dismissal's denial followed by the time-honored phrase "with prejudice to its renewal" — this court's order that overrules a motion to dismiss is always subject to reconsideration.
We hence caution counsel to retender the parties' earlier settlement for a post-mandate approval by the trial judge and for that approval's memorialization to be spread of record below.See Board of Law Library Trustees v. State, Okla., 825 P.2d 1285, 1291 (1991); Spain v. Kernell, Okla., 672 P.2d 1162, 1164-1165 (1983); Bryan v. Seiffert, 185 Okla. 496, 94 P.2d 526, 531-532 (1939) (the court's syllabus ¶ 6). A case is said to be coram non judice when the court in which it is brought has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY at 305 (5th ed. 1979).
It is hence this court's duty to order the action dismissed as coram non judice. See Spain v. Kernell, supra note 17 at 1164-1165; Bryan v. Seiffert, 185 Okla. 496, 94 P.2d 526, 531-532 (1939) (the court's syllabus ¶ 6). A case is said to be coram non judice when the court in which it is brought has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute.