Pettit v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Stork v. Stork

    1995 OK 61 (Okla. 1995)   Cited 36 times
    In Stork, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to refuse the wife's request for a nunc pro tunc order which would have changed the divorce decree's stated date for the commencement of support alimony payments.

    Chandler, supra note 7 at 941; Application of Okla. Nat. Gas Co., supra note 7 at 478. See also Pettit v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., Okla., 595 P.2d 793 (1979); Hawkins v. Hurst, Okla., 467 P.2d 159 (1970); Jones v. Jones, Okla., 442 P.2d 319 (1968); Fowler, supra note 8 at 685; Humphrey Oil Corp. v. Lindsey, Okla., 370 P.2d 296 (1961); Vitale v. Dunnett, Okla., 365 P.2d 122 (1961); Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Kitchen, Okla., 337 P.2d 1081 (1959); Stevens, supra note 7 at 1001; In re Peter's Estate, 175 Okla. 90, 51 P.2d 272 (1935). The wife's quest for a nunc pro tunc correction of the divorce decree is to make it reflect the parties' intent that the alimony installments would begin December 15, 1979 (the first month after the divorce), rather than June 15, 1979 (the date stated in the decree).

  2. Chandler v. Denton

    1987 OK 109 (Okla. 1988)   Cited 13 times

    Because the probate court changed the Decree of Distribution to reflect a different judgment by use of an order nunc pro tunc, such order is outside the office of an order nunc pro tunc and is vacated. Application of Okla. Natural Gas Co., 715 P.2d 477 (Okla. 1985); Pettit v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 595 P.2d 793 (Okla. 1979); Hawkins v. Hurst, 467 P.2d 159 (Okla. 1970); Jones v. Jones, 442 P.2d 319 (Okla. 1968); Fowler v. Zimmerman, 383 P.2d 682 (Okla. 1963); Vitale v. Dunnett, 365 P.2d 122 (Okla. 1961); Humphrey Oil Co. v. Lindsey, 370 P.2d 296 (Okla. 1961); Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Kitchen, 337 P.2d 1081 (Okla. 1959); Stevens Expert Cleaners Dyers v. Stevens, 267 P.2d 998 (Okla. 1954); In re Peter's Estate, 175 Okla. 90, 51 P.2d 272 (1935). Central to the decisions of the probate court, the trial court and the opinion of the Court of Appeals that the disclaimer was void because untimely filed, is their reading of our opinion, In the Matter of the Estate of Griffin, 599 P.2d 402 (Okla. 1979).

  3. Mullins v. Ward

    1985 OK 109 (Okla. 1985)   Cited 32 times

    Hence, the power to make corrections through a nunc pro tunc device extends only to clerical rather than judicial errors. Pettit v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., Okla., 595 P.2d 793, 794 [1979]. Notice is required when an applicant seeks to repeal, amend, modify or supplement a former Commission order establishing a well spacing unit. 52 O.S. 1981 ยง 87.1[ 52-87.1].

  4. Kissinger v. Kissinger

    692 P.2d 71 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984)   Cited 10 times
    In Kissinger v. Kissinger, 1984 OK CIV APP 52, 692 P.2d 71, 75, the mother conceded she had agreed to accept the lesser amount of child support.

    It cannot be used to modify an order or judgment retroactively. Pettit v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 595 P.2d 793 (Okla. 1979). The modification in question came about as a result of an assignment of error set out in the man's timely filed motion for a new trial.

  5. State v. Ortiz

    1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2701 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992)

    Substantial authority supports the view that the proper office of a judgment nunc pro tunc is "'not to supply omitted action, but to supply omission in [the] record of action really had, but omitted through inadvertence or mistake.'" Prince George's County v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 47 Md. App. 380, 423 A.2d 270, 274 (1980), quoting Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) at page 964; see Barros v. Barros, 26 Wash. App. 363, 613 P.2d 547, 548 (1980); Trosper v. Trosper, 82 Ill. App.3d 1012, 38 Ill. Dec. 461, 403 N.E.2d 692, 693 (1979); Coleman v. Coleman, 240 Ga. 417, 240 S.E.2d 870, 872 (1979); Pettit v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 595 P.2d 793, 794 (Okla. 1979); Texas Rubber Supply, Inc. v. Jetslide Intern, Inc., 466 S.W.2d 279, 280 (Tex. 1971); Mora v. Martinez, 80 N.M. 88, 451 P.2d 992, 993 (1969); Carroll v. Carroll, 338 S.W.2d 694, 695 (Ky. 1960); Schenberg v. Schenberg, 307 S.W.2d 697, 703 (Mo.App. 1957); Sheperd v. Adams, 295 S.W.2d 356, 357 (Ark. 1956); Gandy v. Elizabeth City County, 179 Va. 340, 19 S.E.2d 97, 100 (1942). Only because our Supreme Court, in Gary Excavating Co. v. North Haven, supra, and Ireland v. Connecticut Co., supra, has appeared to sanction a somewhat broader scope to the power of a court to enter judgment nunc pro tunc has this court's analysis of the present motion gone as far as it has.