In re Eaton Enterprises to Vacate Northwest

4 Citing cases

  1. Zaloudek Grain Co. v. Compsource Okla.

    298 P.3d 520 (Okla. 2013)   Cited 8 times

    The failure of a party to appeal from an order that is appealable under either subdivision 2 or 3 of subsection (b) of this section shall not preclude him from asserting error in the order after the judgment or final order is rendered. See In The Matter Of The Application Of Eaton Enterprises, 2003 OK 14, ¶ 4, 65 P.3d 277, 279.STANDARD OF REVIEW

  2. Zaloudek Grain Co. v. CompSource Okla.

    2012 OK 75 (Okla. 2012)   Cited 9 times
    In Zaloudek Grain Company v. CompSource, 2012 OK 75, ¶¶ 6–7, 298 P.3d 520, 522–523, the Court noted a standard of appellate review for a summary judgment in the context of the Court recasting an appeal to certified interlocutory review; and also explained that the issue presented involved statutory construction which demanded a de novo appellate review standard.

    The failure of a party to appeal from an order that is appealable under either subdivision 2 or 3 of subsection (b) of this section shall not preclude him from asserting error in the order after the judgment or final order is rendered. See In The Matter Of The Application Of Eaton Enterprises, 2003 OK 14, ¶4, 65 P.3d 277, 279. STANDARD OF REVIEW

  3. Dean v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund

    2006 OK 78 (Okla. 2006)   Cited 24 times

    ¶ 6 The settled-law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation of issues settled by an appellate opinion. In the Matter of the Application of Eaton Enterprises, 2003 OK 14, ¶ 11, 65 P.3d 277, 280. This doctrine is a rule of judicial economy designed to prevent an appellate court from twice having to decide the same issue.

  4. McCamey v. Med. Ctrs. of Okla., LLC

    2016 OK Civ. App. 5 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times
    Holding it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to diligently prosecute under Rule 9(b) when the plaintiff's personal representative was recently substituted as the party and had participated in a status conference

    As the Boston Court noted, independent of the authority granted in Rule 9(b), the district court has the discretion to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, and the discretion to dismiss an action for lack of diligence in prosecution is an aspect of a court's inherent power recognized at common law "to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Boston, 2003 OK 14, n.9. The BostonCourt also noted that Rule 9 rests on that inherent power. Id. ("To the extent that Rule 9 rests upon an exercise of this Court's inherent power, that language is construed according to previously articulated common-law standards, that is, an exercise of sound judicial discretion utilizing applicable court opinions, Constitution, and statutes.").